Hugs (was Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time)
Warren Ockrassa wrote: ... Depends on the joke and context too. In the 80s movie _Bill ted's Excellent Adventure_ Alex Winter and Keanu Reeves hug briefly after a fight, then eye each other and shout, Fag! It's a pretty damn funny moment, I think. A roommate (straight) and I did a similar thing a few years later after a dispute. It was even funnier then. My brother-in-law Mark, whose daughter's husband is the one just killed in Iraq, has always been uncomfortable about hugging men. We'd made kind of a joke about it over the years, adopting a man hug approach that basically amounted to patting each other on the back while maintaining maximum torso separation. When we got to Houston for Wes' funeral, he was the first person talked to on the phone as we drove in... and after he told me how torn up he was, I warned him that he'd been evading real hugs for too long and it was gonna end. Later, I kidded Chayla (his daughter, our niece, a widow at 21) that her dad might not show up at all because I said I'd hug him. Cindy (my wife) said Mark wouldn't show up because people would think I'm gay. No, I joked, if he doesn't show up, it'll be because he's afraid people will think he's gay. There were no more jokes about it after that. Mark *initiated* a few hugs over the next couple of days, tears in his eyes. Parker Palmer writes that when I choose to stand in the tragic gap between what is and what is possible, setting aside our internal demand to resolve issues quickly, my heart can break open into greater capacity to hold more of my own and the world's suffering and joy, despair and hope. He recounts an old Hasidic story. A student asks the rabbi, Why does the Torah tell us to 'place these words *upon* your hearts'? Why does it not tell us to place these holy words *in* our hearts? Answer: It is because as we are, our hearts are closed, and we cannot place the holy words in our hearts. So we place them on top of our hearts. And there they stay until, one day, the heart breaks, and the words fall in. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Hugs (was Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time)
Behalf Of Nick Arnett We'd made kind of a joke about it over the years, adopting a man hug approach that basically amounted to patting each other on the back while maintaining maximum torso separation. My brother-in-law and I do something similar. In our case it's more of a handshake and pat on the shoulder while maintaining extreme separation. I'm not entirely sure how it got started but we keep it up now because it annoys the heck out of my sister and my wife. Heh! - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hugs (was Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time)
On Dec 2, 2004, at 8:27 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: A student asks the rabbi, Why does the Torah tell us to 'place these words *upon* your hearts'? Why does it not tell us to place these holy words *in* our hearts? Answer: It is because as we are, our hearts are closed, and we cannot place the holy words in our hearts. So we place them on top of our hearts. And there they stay until, one day, the heart breaks, and the words fall in. That's really quite lovely. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Nov 30, 2004, at 11:27 PM, Bryon Daly wrote: On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:36:18 -0500, Matthew and Julie Bos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/30/04 4:34 PM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/ quiz.html I did, and got. 16 - Your score rates you as high-grade non-homophobic. I did too! 10 - Your score rates you as high-grade non-homophobic. I got a 24 which is also high-grade non-homophobic 5 here. They need more rating variety. I wanna be something like über 1337 non-homophobic. :-) As long as we're bragging: 2 - high-grade non-homophobic. and that was only because I only ticked agree with a couple of items, not strongly agree. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
- Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 12:02 PM Subject: Re: So it begins Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time On Nov 30, 2004, at 11:27 PM, Bryon Daly wrote: On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:36:18 -0500, Matthew and Julie Bos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/30/04 4:34 PM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/ quiz.html I did, and got. 16 - Your score rates you as high-grade non-homophobic. I did too! 10 - Your score rates you as high-grade non-homophobic. I got a 24 which is also high-grade non-homophobic 5 here. They need more rating variety. I wanna be something like über 1337 non-homophobic. :-) As long as we're bragging: 2 - high-grade non-homophobic. and that was only because I only ticked agree with a couple of items, not strongly agree. That's pretty good. I have one difference with the questions, as asked, that I'd like to air here. It's about teasing gays. I tease my friends and family about all sorts of things. So, if someone is close and gay, I'll tease them. I try to make my teasing a lot more supportive than destructive and watch for results. I also don't think teasing a black person about being black is off limits either. Let me give two family examples. My Zambian daughter was cooking for us one night, and one dish was quite overdone...as in burnt. I told here Neli, I can appreciate that black is beautiful, and I can appreciate pride in being African, but let me suggest that 'black is beautiful' doesn't extend to dinner. I was rewarded with being hit and being told that I was a bad bad man. :-) Dawn, my other extra daughter, ended up going to Homecoming with my son Ted. I teased her, telling her she needed to remember that she was there as Ted's friend, not to pick up hot chicks. (Homecoming dresses are often very hot around here.) My wife, Dawn, and I all burst out laughing. We then agreed that, while picking up hot chicks was out of the question, comparing notes with Ted on who were the hot chicks was certainly appropriate. Due to this type of humor, I had to honestly say that I tease gay people. But, I honestly think this type of teasing is not correlated with homophobia. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Finally, as an exercise, I suggest you take this assessment and answer it truthfully. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html I got: 52 - Your score rates you as homophobic. In his 1996 study of 64 Caucasian, male college students, Dr. Henry Adams classed 35 participants as non-homophobic. In 1980, a different research team found 56% of their white, male sample scored in the homophobic range. This is not conclusive, however. Dr. Adams, the researcher who helped develop this scale, writes that a major difficulty of this area of research is in defining and measuring homophobia. Elsewhere, he cautions: Since there is no universally accepted definition of homophobia, the scales currently in use may not measure all aspects of homophobia. ... but I don't consider myself _homophobic_. Maybe I missed something in the translation. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On 1 Dec 2004, at 9:38 pm, Alberto Monteiro wrote: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/ quiz.html I got: 52 - Your score rates you as homophobic. ... but I don't consider myself _homophobic_. Maybe I missed something in the translation. Different culture. It doesn't seem likely the test was adjusted against other cultures. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who study history are doomed to repeat it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Dec 1, 2004, at 4:52 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: William T Goodall wrote: Different culture. It doesn't seem likely the test was adjusted against other cultures. Maybe. All that part about teasing and making jokes... We make jokes about almost _everything_. Depends on the joke and context too. In the 80s movie _Bill ted's Excellent Adventure_ Alex Winter and Keanu Reeves hug briefly after a fight, then eye each other and shout, Fag! It's a pretty damn funny moment, I think. A roommate (straight) and I did a similar thing a few years later after a dispute. It was even funnier then. Now one *could* argue that this makes both my former roommate *any* myself moderately homophobic, but that would be a hell of a stretch. There are other kinds of jokes too, such as the men's tee-shirt that reads, I'm not gay, but my boyfriend is. Probably it's safe to say that teasing/joking aren't the concern so much as whether one intends to hurt with the jokes. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
Warren, Probably it's safe to say that teasing/joking aren't the concern so much as whether one intends to hurt with the jokes. There you go. My buddy Gee, who is gay, calls himself a fag or a queer all the time. I'm not sure that someone who didn't know him *really* well would mean the same thing, exactly. I've known Gee for close to 10 years, and even *I* don't go there, even though he prods me (hey, now!) to be more playful with him (hey, now!) on the subject. Try going down to Compton (CA, a tough mainly-black neighborhood south of LA) and yelling the N-word out your car window. You might get a reply along the lines of Yo, what up, Nr? You might get a reply along the lines of a huge can of whoop-ass. A lot of it will depend on whether you'd use that word to describe yourself. Dave Cultural Relativism Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
John Horn wrote: My argument was that everytime I walk down the street holding hands with my wife or kissing her in public, *I* am broadcasting my sexuality to the world. I never saw any (hetero- or homo-) couple in the USA showing affection in public, even by holding hands - not to mention kissing. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 09:58:15PM -0800, Dave Land wrote: On Nov 29, 2004, at 7:10 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: If you define religious behavior as a problem in thought processes, then observe problems in the thought-processes of religious people, you only prove that you have problems in your thought process at least as dire as those you bemoan. If X then Y - yes fine. Let me try one. If you believe that X is true, then you are likely suffering from the trap of thinking that because one's own mind doesn't work clearly, then others must be the same. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 11:34:24PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Oh, as if you aren't going to get your children to the age where they CAN read Pullman without having already let them know at least some of the basics of your religious beliefs! And, gee, maybe you can just monitor what they're reading, and when they're done with the book, DISCUSS it with them! Yes, that would certainly be a rational way to handle it. Another thing that amused me was that despite all the talk about Pullman killing God, it seemed to me that the entity in the story most similar to God (i.e., sharing many of the properties attributed to God, albeit one exception being that it can be seen) is Dust itself. One might say that the goal of the protagonists was to SAVE God. Heh. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
Behalf Of Alberto Monteiro I never saw any (hetero- or homo-) couple in the USA showing affection in public, even by holding hands - not to mention kissing. You mean Anita and I are the only ones? Sheesh, I knew those people were staring at us for a reason. I just thought it was because we were snappy dressers... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
This is the last I'm going to post with you on this subject, Dan; we're beginning to go in circles and it's pretty clear you're not going to concede that even *one* of my points makes any sense. Whether this is out of stubbornness or a genuine inability to grasp the validity of others' opinions is an exercise I hope you'll take up. On Nov 29, 2004, at 3:51 PM, Dan Minette wrote: I'm not the one, Dan, who accuses others of being pro-child rape in order to try to score rhetorical points. You're in no position to judge. I was honestly curious. After all man-boy love groups makes arguements that were similar to the ones you made. I wanted clarification and got it. I even apologized for wording it in a way that could be misunderstood. A common technique I use is to first establish boundaries over which a difference takes place, and then narrow the boundaries. How interesting that even your explanation of your behavior (by which I mean the ad hominem attacks you've made) includes a backhanded ad hominem attack. You seem to see sex abuse victims and potential molestors with greater frequency, and in more people, than the average person. Now you might argue that this has something to do with fields in which you've been involved over the years, but if they've clouded your opinion of your fellow human beings so much that your initial reaction to anyone is to presume the worst, I submit you need a long vacation. Beyond that your talent for straw men is exquisite; and even when I respond to the data you submit, such as it is, by pointing out that it is not relevant to your assertions, you seem to believe I'm the one, not you, who made the mistake. Given the amazing quantity of unsubstantiated propositions you've put forth, the lack of relevant evidence to support those claims, and the misdirecting, ad hominem and straw man arguments, I cannot carry on a rational dialogue with you. I suggest you study Erik's rhetorical style. He's very good at this. Regarding hate crimes -- I don't recognize the term and do not believe it should be legally defined. Murder is murder. Since hatecrime punishment is usually considerably more severe then punishments for the same crime given a different definition, I cannot see any criminal (or attorney) copping to a hatecrime plea voluntarily. Naturally the statistics are going to show depressed convictions. Furthermore your analysis of the materials posted at hatecrime.org is hopelessly flawed. You cite a gay group listing 8 homicides over the last 9+ years, but you don't include any reference and you don't bother to mention links such as this one: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004885.html listing over 1200 crimes in 2002 based on sexual orientation; nor this one: http://www.civilrights.org/issues/hate/details.cfm?id=26241 stating there were nearly 7500 hatecrime incidents in 2003, 17% of which occurred because of sexual orientation. Murder statistics are not given at those sites, but I wonder why you think that's the litmus limit. There are plenty of crimes that warrant the use of any force necessary to terminate the perpetration. An armed GLBT population would go a long way toward stopping bigotry, wouldn't it? Finally, as an exercise, I suggest you take this assessment and answer it truthfully. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html That's it. We're through. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 11:43 AM Subject: Re: So it begins Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time This is the last I'm going to post with you on this subject, Dan; we're beginning to go in circles and it's pretty clear you're not going to concede that even *one* of my points makes any sense. Whether this is out of stubbornness or a genuine inability to grasp the validity of others' opinions is an exercise I hope you'll take up. On Nov 29, 2004, at 3:51 PM, Dan Minette wrote: I'm not the one, Dan, who accuses others of being pro-child rape in order to try to score rhetorical points. You're in no position to judge. I was honestly curious. After all man-boy love groups makes arguements that were similar to the ones you made. I wanted clarification and got it. I even apologized for wording it in a way that could be misunderstood. A common technique I use is to first establish boundaries over which a difference takes place, and then narrow the boundaries. How interesting that even your explanation of your behavior (by which I mean the ad hominem attacks you've made) includes a backhanded ad hominem attack. You seem to see sex abuse victims and potential molestors with greater frequency, and in more people, than the average person. I see them in numbers consistent with known statistitics. References have been posted extensively on this list. Look at the archives for the references. The trick is, of course, to see it you have to let people feel safe in telling you. I'll give a simple example. Go to something like a retreat for young people. Try to get along with the young people. Simply share your experiences with the repercussions of abuse in your own life. Then listen. It doesn't seem that I have a jaded view of humanityI just think people are wounded, incomplete and in need of grace. Beyond that your talent for straw men is exquisite; and even when I respond to the data you submit, such as it is, by pointing out that it is not relevant to your assertions, you seem to believe I'm the one, not you, who made the mistake. Given the amazing quantity of unsubstantiated propositions you've put forth, the lack of relevant evidence to support those claims, and the misdirecting, ad hominem and straw man arguments, I cannot carry on a rational dialogue with you. I suggest you study Erik's rhetorical style. He's very good at this. You mean you actually prefer: quote But I think that your comments, Warren, have often been incoherent. When they have been comprehensible, they have tended to be absurd, irrational, and contrary to facts. I have found most of your posts to be nearly worthless. You really need to try MUCH harder if you want to persuade people of anything, or even if you want to avoid appearing the fool. end quote Well, that's not my style. I actually try to be patient and polite, ask questions, etc. I'm sorry that you don't see it that way. Murder statistics are not given at those sites, but I wonder why you think that's the litmus limit. It's really quite simple. You were talking about lynchings. I think there would be a strong arguement that the Jews had a right to pre-emptive strikes against the Nazis. The Black Panther's did not have a right to pre-emptive strikes. You don't either. There are plenty of crimes that warrant the use of any force necessary to terminate the perpetration. An armed GLBT population would go a long way toward stopping bigotry, wouldn't it? No, it would promote shootouts. It's the same nonsense that the Black Panthers argued back in the '60s. It went out of style around the same time that Bernstein stopped inviting Black Panthers to his parties. Thank God that most gays are more reasonable about this than you are. The backlash would be ugly if even 10% subscribed to the nonsense of killing first and asking questions later. BTW, just kidding is not an acceptable statement after approval of murder. It's like saying gays should be killed and then saying can't you take a joke? Finally, as an exercise, I suggest you take this assessment and answer it truthfully. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html I did, and got. 16 - Your score rates you as high-grade non-homophobic. In his 1996 study of 64 white, male college students, Dr. Henry Adams classed 29 participants as non-homophobic. Their mean score was 30.48, however, placing most of the men outside of this sub-group. Dr. Adams reported that he had difficulty finding heterosexual men whose scores ranked them as high-grade non-homophobic I don't see how you can have read what I wrote and come to that conclusion that I'm homophobic. I think gay marriage is pro-family. When one of my extra daughters came to the realization she was gay...she was dating guys before that...and told us, she
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On 30 Nov 2004, at 7:28 pm, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Finally, as an exercise, I suggest you take this assessment and answer it truthfully. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html I did, and got. 16 - Your score rates you as high-grade non-homophobic. I did too! 10 - Your score rates you as high-grade non-homophobic. In his 1996 study of 64 white, male college students, Dr. Henry Adams classed 29 participants as non-homophobic. Their mean score was 30.48, however, placing most of the men outside of this sub-group. Dr. Adams reported that he had difficulty finding heterosexual men whose scores ranked them as high-grade non-homophobic So those students were seething with repressed gayness then? Like Republicans? Or maybe that repression theory is broken... -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again. -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
- Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 3:34 PM Subject: Re: So it begins Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time Or maybe that repression theory is broken... It has recently been replaced by the recession theory: men born during ecconomic downturns are more likely to be gay when they are adults. Dan M. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again. -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
Dan said: It has recently been replaced by the recession theory: men born during ecconomic downturns are more likely to be gay when they are adults. I was reading yesterday about how in mice and deer (and presumably other animals), the birth weights of male and female offspring change to favour females in hard times and males in times of plenty. I don't know if your recession theory is serious or not, but it could in some way be related; although I guess that the direct pseudo-economic evolutionary analysis wouldn't apply. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
- Original Message - From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 4:08 PM Subject: Re: So it begins Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time Dan said: It has recently been replaced by the recession theory: men born during ecconomic downturns are more likely to be gay when they are adults. I was reading yesterday about how in mice and deer (and presumably other animals), the birth weights of male and female offspring change to favour females in hard times and males in times of plenty. I don't know if your recession theory is serious or not, but it could in some way be related; although I guess that the direct pseudo-economic evolutionary analysis wouldn't apply. No, it was just a silly play on words. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On 11/30/04 4:34 PM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html I did, and got. 16 - Your score rates you as high-grade non-homophobic. I did too! 10 - Your score rates you as high-grade non-homophobic. I got a 24 which is also high-grade non-homophobic Which therefore I can be... Republican, conservative, Christian, and anti-gay marriage and still not be homophobic. Matthew Bos ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
Erik Reuter wrote: Another thing that amused me was that despite all the talk about Pullman killing God, it seemed to me that the entity in the story most similar to God (i.e., sharing many of the properties attributed to God, albeit one exception being that it can be seen) is Dust itself. One might say that the goal of the protagonists was to SAVE God. Heh. Pullman has said the series is essentially a retelling of Milton's Paradise lost. So I find it particularly strange that the objections are mostly on religious grounds. For whatever that's worth. Amanda Amanda ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:36:18 -0500, Matthew and Julie Bos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/30/04 4:34 PM, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html I did, and got. 16 - Your score rates you as high-grade non-homophobic. I did too! 10 - Your score rates you as high-grade non-homophobic. I got a 24 which is also high-grade non-homophobic 5 here. They need more rating variety. I wanna be something like über 1337 non-homophobic. :-) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
At 05:33 PM 11/29/2004 +1100 Andrew Paul wrote: I guess my issue is when people want things banned. People can object to policies all they like, but when they want them banned, and others do not, it becomes more of a concern. Does that include non-denominational prayer in public schools? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Nov 28, 2004, at 9:32 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Nov 28, 2004, at 12:39 PM, Damon Agretto wrote: And Warren, that sort of altitude is not going to win you any arguments, and in fact invalidates any sort of rational argument you with to present. Not when I'm not presenting any rational argument, which would be pointless in dealing with fanatics. Out of curiosity, have any of them stated that they saw nothing wrong with killing Godless atheists? I didn't say anything about killing atheists, Dan. How about glorifying murder? http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/shepard_monument.html These are the same people who wouldn't even let that poor guy get buried in peace: http://www.godhatesfags.com/images/shepard_funeral.jpg This is the face of religious extremism, Dan, and it leads only in one direction. I refuse to be one of the oppressed. I will do what I have to to defend myself. BTW, Dan, as for religious wackos agitation to kill atheists: http://www.truechristian.com/atheists.html From that page: So the answer is simple. Kill all atheists immediately. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Nov 28, 2004, at 9:54 PM, Damon Agretto wrote: I find it striking that when the victims of bigotry start using the same language as the bigots, we're told shame on you or to ramp back the rhetoric, as though it's poor form for us to defend ourselves. I don't even buy the you're no better argument, because I didn't throw the first punch. It's the *oppressors* that are in the wrong here, not those of us who will use any force necessary to defend our rights and our lives. That's because if you do, it stops seeming to be about social justice, and starts to be about *vengeance.* What happens when a political coup trumps social justice? It's not about defending yourselves, but about being the better person and not resort to the same harassing techniques the bigots use. I disagree. I will keep the conversation civil as long as my life isn't under threat, but I've been fighting this battle considerably longer than you (I suspect), and I know downward trends when I see them. Institutionalized bigotry leads to murders. There's plenty of historical proof to back up that claim. I advocate neutralizing the cancer before it spreads. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Nov 29, 2004, at 6:01 AM, JDG wrote: At 05:33 PM 11/29/2004 +1100 Andrew Paul wrote: I guess my issue is when people want things banned. People can object to policies all they like, but when they want them banned, and others do not, it becomes more of a concern. Does that include non-denominational prayer in public schools? Yes. And actually, the under God should be removed from the pledge as well. Schools are not in the business of teaching religion or morality -- those are best left to the parents, don't you think? BTW, what precisely is a non-denominational prayer? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
Warren said: BTW, what precisely is a non-denominational prayer? The sort of thing that wouldn't look out of place in the Orange Catholic Bible? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 10:42 AM Subject: Re: So it begins Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time On Nov 28, 2004, at 9:32 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Nov 28, 2004, at 12:39 PM, Damon Agretto wrote: And Warren, that sort of altitude is not going to win you any arguments, and in fact invalidates any sort of rational argument you with to present. Not when I'm not presenting any rational argument, which would be pointless in dealing with fanatics. Out of curiosity, have any of them stated that they saw nothing wrong with killing Godless atheists? I didn't say anything about killing atheists, Dan. Yes you did: If these clowns love Jesus so much, I see nothing wrong with sending them to meet him immediately. I've thought of two possible viewpoints on this: 1) Religeous...Jesus is in heaven in the hereafter. There is nothing wrong with sending these folks to the hereafter. 2) Non-religeous...Jesus is in the grave. There is nothing wrong with sending these people to the grave. The words clearly talk about removing these clowns from the mortal coil. If I saw people talking/writing about not seeing anything wrong with sending fags** to Hell where they belong, I'd not believe any protests that they really weren't talking about killing. If it was on a mailing list, I know I wouldn't be gentle in responding. How about glorifying murder? http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/shepard_monument.html These are the same people who wouldn't even let that poor guy get buried in peace: Well, the word blasphemy comes to mind very quickly. Taking the name of God to support evil is horrid...it compounds their sin. This is a clear and major rejection of the 2nd commandment about not taking the Lord's name in vain. In fact, I can think of a worse violation of this commandment than to claim God's blessing on evil actions. I'd say crime, but I know we have freedom of speech, even for people who have very sick and even evil ideas, so I would guess that they have written it so that they are not actually calling for additional murders and are thus protected by the first amendment. So, what they did was worse than what you wrote. But, if anyone wrote on a mailing list that I was on that they saw nothing wrong with killing fags, then I'd be offended. I try to have one standard, not two. Dan M. **Yes, that is a nasty word, but I was trying to reflect that evil viewpoint properly. I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but I hope you can see why I don't want to understate the vileness of the attitude. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Nov 29, 2004, at 10:06 AM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Nov 28, 2004, at 9:32 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Nov 28, 2004, at 12:39 PM, Damon Agretto wrote: And Warren, that sort of altitude is not going to win you any arguments, and in fact invalidates any sort of rational argument you with to present. Not when I'm not presenting any rational argument, which would be pointless in dealing with fanatics. Out of curiosity, have any of them stated that they saw nothing wrong with killing Godless atheists? I didn't say anything about killing atheists, Dan. Yes you did: If these clowns love Jesus so much, I see nothing wrong with sending them to meet him immediately. No I didn't. (Look at what you JUST quoted and show me where I said ANYTHING about atheists.) The words clearly talk about removing these clowns from the mortal coil. That's correct. It's called a pre-emptive strike. If I saw people talking/writing about not seeing anything wrong with sending fags** to Hell where they belong, I'd not believe any protests that they really weren't talking about killing. If it was on a mailing list, I know I wouldn't be gentle in responding. There are a couple major distinctions here. 1. It's not the fags that began advocating oppression, enacting bigoted legislation or lauding murder. It's the fags whose lives and freedoms are under constant threat, which threat is now provably increased as a result of the alleged mandate received by religious cretins in the last election. You need, you really need, to understand the difference between oppressed and oppressor. 2. I AM one of those fags to which you refer. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Nov 28, 2004, at 5:56 PM, JDG wrote: At 02:39 PM 11/28/2004 -0500 Damon Agretto wrote: So what begins?More demonization of Christians? Sometimes I think that for all the talk about religious tolerance, that some people believe that Christians really shouldn't be permitted to participate in the political process. I would note, John, that these are direct quotes done in front of a news camera. Look, I probably would not have made those comments. Nevertheless, it is particularly annoying that after moral conservatives are an integral part of the winning coalition in the most recent election that the first thing religious conservative leaders are asked is what they plan to do for the *losing* side in the last election. And yet, somehow when the Democrats win, we don't see Patricia Ireland, Jesse Jackson, or the head of ACT-UP asked on how they plan to reach out to religious conservatives, do we? Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those you hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you that you may be the children of your Father who is in Heaven. -- Matthew 5:44-45 Not a word in there about whether those who despitefully use you were the winners or the *losers* as you so delicately emphasized it. Nobody likes a sore winner, John. Climb off it. Here's the thing: when one sets oneself above others, claiming that one hews to a higher standard (and demands that they do the same on threat of damnation), one should expect to be held to that same standard. Or, as a wise man once said: Judge not, that you not be judged. -- Matthew 7:1 That judgmental, critical, damning attitude is probably the most poisonous thing infecting Christianity today. Want to know why fine people like WTG hurl such vicious invective at Christianity? Because we have let ourselves be represented by vicious, invective-hurling brutes. It's time to take back Christianity, which is not the party of the winners, but always sides with the *losers*. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 11:26 AM Subject: Re: So it begins Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time If these clowns love Jesus so much, I see nothing wrong with sending them to meet him immediately. Whoops, I mis-read. You said something about killing Christians. So, that's OK? It appears so. That's correct. It's called a pre-emptive strike. 1. It's not the fags that began advocating oppression, enacting bigoted legislation or lauding murder. It's the fags whose lives and freedoms are under constant threat, which threat is now provably increased as a result of the alleged mandate received by religious cretins in the last election. You need, you really need, to understand the difference between oppressed and oppressor. 2. I AM one of those fags to which you refer. I guessed, as is one of my extra daughters and as are my two oldest friends. I support the existence of hate crime laws, and not just the regular murder laws for those who kill gays. But, you are advocating murder, sir. That statement is similar to the advocating of the bombing of abortion clinics. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Nov 28, 2004, at 4:03 PM, William T Goodall wrote: But he also apparently said I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them. It's not quite a Yogi Berra-ism, but deep, very deep. Reminds me of a bumper sticker: Don't believe everything you think. Dave And what is it with the word strong and this idiot president of ours? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
Behalf Of Gary Nunn snip Cass wants a U.S. Supreme Court that will outlaw abortion and gay marriage. Do you want to take your children to a National League baseball game for instance and have homosexuals showing affection to one another? I don't want my kids to see that, he said. For me, this was the most telling quote in the entire article. It completely undermines the argument that gays have the same right to marriage as anyone else and that pushing gay marriage is somehow giving gays an extra priviledge. How does outlawing gay marriage stop gays from showing affection to one another in public? Answer: it doesn't. But it is a clue as to what is the real agenda of this effort. Push 'em back in the closet and out of sight so we can pretend they don't exist. I remember making this argument with a local radio talk show host almost 20 years ago. The host couldn't understand why gays wanted the right to broadcast their sexuality to the world. My argument was that everytime I walk down the street holding hands with my wife or kissing her in public, *I* am broadcasting my sexuality to the world. It just happens to be heterosexual and is acceptable. That's all gays want, is the same right as anyone else to be able to do that and not be subjected to harrassment, violence or worse. Things haven't changed in 20 years. Also, notice that this guy isn't saying let abortion and gay marriage be up to the individual states. No, he says he wants the SCOTUS to outlaw them. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Nov 29, 2004, at 8:45 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: I advocate neutralizing the cancer before it spreads. Beware: to hyped-up religious zealots, *you* are a cancer that needs to be neutralized before it spreads. To hyped-up anti-religious fanatics, hyped-up religious zealots are the cancer. Dave Beyond Here Be Dragons Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Nov 29, 2004, at 10:42 AM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] If these clowns love Jesus so much, I see nothing wrong with sending them to meet him immediately. Whoops, I mis-read. You said something about killing Christians. So, that's OK? It appears so. I don't advocate killing Christians, just bigots. There are enough of them in the world already. We don't need more. Consider that if this attitude had been in place against the Taliban, the WTC might still be standing. Sometimes it makes sense to eliminate a pocket of virulent hatred rather than allow it to fester and turn into a source of misery for thousands. Consider that this attitude is one alleged reason for the assault on Iraq. Kill the oppressors! Set hundreds of thousands of people free! This is not seen as being even remotely senseless to millions of Americans. I'm not the one pushing for oppression or hatred. I'll defend myself using any degree of force necessary. The discretion is mine. If I feel a need to use words to defend myself, I will use words. If I have to put a bullet into the brain of someone trying to harm or kill me, I will do that. I'm using words now because I'd prefer not to have to kill anyone to defend my rights, my person or my life, but I will if necessary. I think the term here is fair warning. What part of the foregoing is unreasonable? Frankly, I'm tired of this crap. I'd be perfectly happy to drop all the belligerence if the religious intolerants would just shut the hell up and let me (and mine) live peacefully. There are millions just like me who feel exactly the same. But those who have chosen to take sides against us refuse to allow that. So yes, I advocate eliminating bigotry. If we can't do that, the next step is to eliminate the bigots. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Nov 29, 2004, at 9:26 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Nov 29, 2004, at 10:06 AM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Nov 28, 2004, at 9:32 PM, Dan Minette wrote: I didn't say anything about killing atheists, Dan. Yes you did: If these clowns love Jesus so much, I see nothing wrong with sending them to meet him immediately. No I didn't. (Look at what you JUST quoted and show me where I said ANYTHING about atheists.) The words clearly talk about removing these clowns from the mortal coil. That's correct. It's called a pre-emptive strike. Actually, it's called murder. Welcome to death row. BTW, I believe Warren's statement advocated the killing of Christians, not atheists. Welcome to Rome, Nero. Dave Hatred Is Not A Family Value Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
Warren said: The words clearly talk about removing these clowns from the mortal coil. That's correct. It's called a pre-emptive strike. I think it is, rather, called inflammatory, stupid and counterproductive. No matter how opposed to religion you might be, I don't think that killing religious people is going to improve things. Rich VFP Ad Hominem Attack ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 12:11 PM Subject: Re: So it begins Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time On Nov 29, 2004, at 10:42 AM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] If these clowns love Jesus so much, I see nothing wrong with sending them to meet him immediately. Whoops, I mis-read. You said something about killing Christians. So, that's OK? It appears so. I don't advocate killing Christians, just bigots. There are enough of them in the world already. We don't need more. Then why be one? That would be a good place to start. Consider that if this attitude had been in place against the Taliban, the WTC might still be standing. And the Soviet Union would have been glass in the late '40s. Sometimes it makes sense to eliminate a pocket of virulent hatred rather than allow it to fester and turn into a source of misery for thousands. What would you do? Kill everyone who is opposed to gay marriages? Kill everyone who thinks homosexuality is a sin? Just how many million do you want dead? Even if you are just talking about people who would be called bigots by most Americans, you are still talking about killing millions. Consider that this attitude is one alleged reason for the assault on Iraq. Kill the oppressors! Set hundreds of thousands of people free! This is not seen as being even remotely senseless to millions of Americans. Well, the administration's bungling of Iraq certainly doesn't help the arguement, but there were tens of thousands of people dying every year from his rule. I'm not the one pushing for oppression or hatred. We differ on that...your posts seem hateful. I'll defend myself using any degree of force necessary. The discretion is mine. If I feel a need to use words to defend myself, I will use words. If I have to put a bullet into the brain of someone trying to harm or kill me, I will do that. Iff you are in clear and present danger, then it is self defense. Otherwise, it's homocide. I'm using words now because I'd prefer not to have to kill anyone to defend my rights, my person or my life, but I will if necessary. I think the term here is fair warning. Looks a lot like the kinda warning given by Bin Laden to me. What part of the foregoing is unreasonable? Killing people without a clear and present threat to your life. Frankly, I'm tired of this crap. I'd be perfectly happy to drop all the belligerence if the religious intolerants would just shut the hell up and let me (and mine) live peacefully. There are millions just like me who feel exactly the same. You really think there are millions of gays who call for wholesale slaughter? But those who have chosen to take sides against us refuse to allow that. So yes, I advocate eliminating bigotry. If we can't do that, the next step is to eliminate the bigots. That's not what you are doing. You posts indicate an embracing of the evil that was behind the murder of Matthew Shephard as your guiding light. Maybe the posts don't accurately reflect your mindset, all I have are words on a screen...but killing people because you believe they think the wrong things is evil. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
- Original Message - From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 1:00 PM Subject: Re: So it begins Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time Warren said: The words clearly talk about removing these clowns from the mortal coil. That's correct. It's called a pre-emptive strike. I think it is, rather, called inflammatory, stupid and counterproductive. No matter how opposed to religion you might be, I don't think that killing religious people is going to improve things. I missed seeing a word, here, Rich, but I'm guessing you agree with it. Lynching people for esposuing bad ideas is also wrong, isn't it? Or, is that a word you just eschew, preferring to call actions like rapes and murder stupid and counterproductive instead of wrong. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
That's not what you are doing. You posts indicate an embracing of the evil that was behind the murder of Matthew Shephard as your guiding light. Maybe the posts don't accurately reflect your mindset, all I have are words on a screen...but killing people because you believe they think the wrong things is evil. Well said, you've effectively articulated what I was trying to say before. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Legends Aussie Centurion Mk.5/1 __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
Dan said: I missed seeing a word, here, Rich, but I'm guessing you agree with it. Lynching people for esposuing bad ideas is also wrong, isn't it? Or, is that a word you just eschew, preferring to call actions like rapes and murder stupid and counterproductive instead of wrong. Well, yes: I think that lynching people for any reason is wrong. But I also think that's not a particular useful thing to say. Warren could just as well say No, it isn't and I'd say Yes, it is, and Dan agrees, and so does Jesus or whatever and he'd say No, it isn't and we wouldn't get anywhere worthwhile. At least talking in terms of actions being stupid or counterproductive can result in more worthwhile discussions. Posting what I can only take to be not very serious incitements to kill religious people is certainly counterproductive and manifestly inflammatory. It's not as if the likes of you or John are going to say Well, I used to be religious but now that Warren has called for the death of religious people I've realised religion is stupid so I hereby renounce it. In fact, it's no more likely to have that effect than William's religion is evil mantra or the Fool's posting of somewhat dubious articles together with accusations of bigotry or Erik talking about religion rotting brains (or whatever; that's not a direct quote, of course, but I hope he doesn't think I'm misrepresenting him). For a while now, I've been finding all of these last strains of anti-religious posting quite annoying; and whilst I don't think any of them should or would on that account refrain from posting such things (which I can in any case ignore after the initial little jolt of annoyance), I would like to dissociate myself from them. Rich VFP Battlestar Galactica Break ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On 29 Nov 2004, at 9:24 pm, Richard Baker wrote: Rich VFP Battlestar Galactica Break That was a good episode! And those evil religious Cylons! And the thing about Baltar, and his tics, twitches and muttering is that when you see an interview with James Callis who plays him you realise he is actually *toning it down* to play the part! -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone. - Bjarne Stroustrup ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
William said: That was a good episode! And those evil religious Cylons! And the thing about Baltar, and his tics, twitches and muttering is that when you see an interview with James Callis who plays him you realise he is actually *toning it down* to play the part! Yes, it was good. The paranoia is really starting to kick in. By the end, my mother was shouting That's not the President, that's a Cylon! with no supporting evidence whatsoever. I have no idea what the point of the Cylon-occupied Caprica thread is though. There isn't much of the old spaceships-blowing-each-other-up, is there? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Battlestar Galactica Was: Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On 29 Nov 2004, at 9:46 pm, Richard Baker wrote: [For the benefit of foreigners:] S P O I L E R A L E R T S P O I L E R A L E R T I have no idea what the point of the Cylon-occupied Caprica thread is though. It gets us Boomer in the sun as well as Boomer in the Battlestar. Twice as much Grace Park can't be a bad thing. Also there may be some plot thingy involved that plays out slowly as an arc. A bit of suborning or such. There isn't much of the old spaceships-blowing-each-other-up, is there? But they do it rather well when they do. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Mac OS X is a rock-solid system that's beautifully designed. I much prefer it to Linux. - Bill Joy. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Nov 29, 2004, at 11:27 AM, Dave Land wrote: That's correct. It's called a pre-emptive strike. Actually, it's called murder. Welcome to death row. No, it's called war. And I'm not the one bringing it on, remember? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Battlestar Galactica Was: Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
William said: [For the benefit of foreigners...] S P O I L E R A L E R T S P O I L E R A L E R T [...some of whom I bet will read this anyway] I have no idea what the point of the Cylon-occupied Caprica thread is though. It gets us Boomer in the sun as well as Boomer in the Battlestar. Twice as much Grace Park can't be a bad thing. Also there may be some plot thingy involved that plays out slowly as an arc. A bit of suborning or such. I keep wondering if they are going to return the pair of them to the Galactica, but this would lead to two Boomers in one place, which would be obvious. I am also wondering whether the humanoid entities are really Cylons or if they are Something Else that have somehow taken over Cylon civilisation for their own ends. Have they ever themselves said they are Cylons? I don't recall. There isn't much of the old spaceships-blowing-each-other-up, is there? But they do it rather well when they do. Yes, they do. I think all things considered I'd rather have the battles as infrequent as they are because it's hard to believe that the remain few dozen Vipers could hold out against a weekly Cylon attack like in the old series. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Nov 29, 2004, at 11:54 AM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whoops, I mis-read. You said something about killing Christians. So, that's OK? It appears so. I don't advocate killing Christians, just bigots. There are enough of them in the world already. We don't need more. Then why be one? That would be a good place to start. Be one what? What are you accusing me of being now? Consider that if this attitude had been in place against the Taliban, the WTC might still be standing. And the Soviet Union would have been glass in the late '40s. The difference being that the USSR didn't fly aircraft into buildings. Sometimes it makes sense to eliminate a pocket of virulent hatred rather than allow it to fester and turn into a source of misery for thousands. What would you do? Kill everyone who is opposed to gay marriages? Kill everyone who thinks homosexuality is a sin? Nope. Just the ones who openly support murder, and those who commit it in the first place. I honestly don't see what's so hard to understand about that. Treating intolerance with tolerance lets the intolerance win, every time. Eliminating the intolerance is the most reasonable response to it. I'm not the one pushing for oppression or hatred. We differ on that...your posts seem hateful. I'm not the one, Dan, who accuses others of being pro-child rape in order to try to score rhetorical points. You're in no position to judge. I'll defend myself using any degree of force necessary. The discretion is mine. If I feel a need to use words to defend myself, I will use words. If I have to put a bullet into the brain of someone trying to harm or kill me, I will do that. Iff you are in clear and present danger, then it is self defense. Otherwise, it's homocide. I see a clear and present danger in the form of increased bigotry (which, by the way, YOU are trying to turn into an anti-religious argument -- that's only sensible if you consider Christians to be bigoted). I'm using words now because I'd prefer not to have to kill anyone to defend my rights, my person or my life, but I will if necessary. I think the term here is fair warning. Looks a lot like the kinda warning given by Bin Laden to me. Aha, I see. As soon as the victims stand up and say, stop victimizing us, they become terrorists! Frankly, I'm tired of this crap. I'd be perfectly happy to drop all the belligerence if the religious intolerants would just shut the hell up and let me (and mine) live peacefully. There are millions just like me who feel exactly the same. You really think there are millions of gays who call for wholesale slaughter? Where, precisely, did I say that? Are you so intent on making a point that you are unaware of everything else, or are you really so blind that you didn't even see what I posted? Or are you just so intent on demonizing your opponent that you have to call him either an advocate of child molestation/incest or as a murderous, bloodthirsty demagogue in order to make your own weak stance seem more plausible? But those who have chosen to take sides against us refuse to allow that. So yes, I advocate eliminating bigotry. If we can't do that, the next step is to eliminate the bigots. That's not what you are doing. You posts indicate an embracing of the evil that was behind the murder of Matthew Shephard as your guiding light. Uh, no, Dan, they embrace the idea of defending life and liberty with lethal force, if necessary. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Nov 29, 2004, at 10:57 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Nov 29, 2004, at 11:27 AM, Dave Land wrote: That's correct. It's called a pre-emptive strike. Actually, it's called murder. Welcome to death row. No, it's called war. And I'm not the one bringing it on, remember? Regardless of my feelings about war, I don't think your useless and inflammatory statement is worthy of the name. If you were the leader of a nation or tribe or some such and you called for an attack on another nation or tribe or some such, you might be able to call it war. When it's one whacko calling for the death of other whackos, it's just incitement to murder. In any event, it's just childish spouting off and does absolutely nothing to move your argument -- whatever the hell it might have been -- ahead. Blessings, Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
From: JDG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] At 05:33 PM 11/29/2004 +1100 Andrew Paul wrote: I guess my issue is when people want things banned. People can object to policies all they like, but when they want them banned, and others do not, it becomes more of a concern. Does that include non-denominational prayer in public schools? It's a issue fraught with over-reaction I feel. I said prayers, of a sort of general Christian nature, all through my schooling, and don't feel scared in any great way, but I think, in this day and age, with the growing religious diversity of many countries, that public schools should probably drop general prayers of all denominations. Have a prayer time, where folks can go off and pray to whatever deity inspires them, alone, or in self selected groups sure, but I think that general school prayers, in public schools should probably cease. I don't feel all that strongly about it, I think there are a lot of things of greater import. Leave it up to the individual schools council or something, but I don't think prayers should be forced upon a school. So I guess that's a kind of yes, and no. Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 2:21 PM Subject: Re: So it begins Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time On Nov 29, 2004, at 11:54 AM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whoops, I mis-read. You said something about killing Christians. So, that's OK? It appears so. I don't advocate killing Christians, just bigots. There are enough of them in the world already. We don't need more. Then why be one? That would be a good place to start. Be one what? What are you accusing me of being now? A bigot, of course. Consider that if this attitude had been in place against the Taliban, the WTC might still be standing. And the Soviet Union would have been glass in the late '40s. Nope. Just the ones who openly support murder, and those who commit it in the first place. I honestly don't see what's so hard to understand about that. But, you openly support murder. Treating intolerance with tolerance lets the intolerance win, every time. Eliminating the intolerance is the most reasonable response to I'm not the one, Dan, who accuses others of being pro-child rape in order to try to score rhetorical points. You're in no position to judge. I was honestly curious. After all man-boy love groups makes arguements that were similar to the ones you made. I wanted clarification and got it. I even apologized for wording it in a way that could be misunderstood. A common technique I use is to first establish boundaries over which a difference takes place, and then narrow the boundaries. I'll defend myself using any degree of force necessary. The discretion is mine. If I feel a need to use words to defend myself, I will use words. If I have to put a bullet into the brain of someone trying to harm or kill me, I will do that. Iff you are in clear and present danger, then it is self defense. Otherwise, it's homocide. I see a clear and present danger in the form of increased bigotry (which, by the way, YOU are trying to turn into an anti-religious argument -- that's only sensible if you consider Christians to be bigoted). Clear and present danger? Lets look at numbers. At http://www.hatecrime.org/index.html we see that a gay group counts 8 homicides over the last 9+ years as a result of anti-gay hate crimes. Now, that is clearly 8 too many, but let's talk about the direct risk to your own life. Based on this, and assuming 5% of the population is male and gay, we have almost 15 million gay males in the US. So, the probability of you being killed by a random hate murder in a given year is significantly less than one in a million. This is not a clear and present danger that would authorize the use of leathal force. Looks a lot like the kinda warning given by Bin Laden to me. Aha, I see. As soon as the victims stand up and say, stop victimizing us, they become terrorists! No, it's as soon as they threaten terrorism themselves. Your arguement justifies the Co Frankly, I'm tired of this crap. I'd be perfectly happy to drop all the belligerence if the religious intolerants would just shut the hell up and let me (and mine) live peacefully. There are millions just like me who feel exactly the same. You really think there are millions of gays who call for wholesale slaughter? Where, precisely, did I say that. Are you so intent on making a point that you are unaware of everything else, or are you really so blind that you didn't even see what I posted? You posted: So yes, I advocate eliminating bigotry. If we can't do that, the next step is to eliminate the bigots. IIRC, you also called JDG clearly a bigot earlierbut it might have just been homophobic bigotry you mentioned, so maybe he can live on a technicality. Would you like to bet that, if I look, I can't dig up a quote accusing JDG of something like that? Or are you just so intent on demonizing your opponent that you have to call him either an advocate of child molestation/incest or as a murderous, bloodthirsty demagogue in order to make your own weak stance seem more plausible? If one does not want to appear bloodthirsty, then one shouldn't favor lynchings. Uh, no, Dan, they embrace the idea of defending life and liberty with lethal force, if necessary. That's what the Klan claims too. There is a clear line between folks like the Klansmen and just plain opinionated citizens. Approving lynchings crosses over that line. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Battlestar Galactica Was: Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On 29 Nov 2004, at 10:26 pm, Richard Baker wrote: William said: [For the benefit of foreigners...] S P O I L E R A L E R T S P O I L E R A L E R T [...some of whom I bet will read this anyway] [...and then regret it bitterly] I have no idea what the point of the Cylon-occupied Caprica thread is though. It gets us Boomer in the sun as well as Boomer in the Battlestar. Twice as much Grace Park can't be a bad thing. Also there may be some plot thingy involved that plays out slowly as an arc. A bit of suborning or such. I keep wondering if they are going to return the pair of them to the Galactica, but this would lead to two Boomers in one place, which would be obvious. I am also wondering whether the humanoid entities are really Cylons or if they are Something Else that have somehow taken over Cylon civilisation for their own ends. Have they ever themselves said they are Cylons? I don't recall. I still haven't seen all of both parts of the mini-series. Sky is still repeating it frequently on the Movie channels so I must try and catch up. I think some important clues were in there. The humanoid 'Cylons' were created by the original Cylons. Whether they are actual Cylons, brainwashed slave-humans or artificial life-forms allied with the Cylons is a mystery. The Cylon space-fighters being bio-mechanical hybrids is interesting. There isn't much of the old spaceships-blowing-each-other-up, is there? But they do it rather well when they do. Yes, they do. I think all things considered I'd rather have the battles as infrequent as they are because it's hard to believe that the remain few dozen Vipers could hold out against a weekly Cylon attack like in the old series. That's a good point. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping looks so silly. - Randy Cohen. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 09:24:42PM +, Richard Baker wrote: dubious articles together with accusations of bigotry or Erik talking about religion rotting brains (or whatever; that's not a direct quote, of course, but I hope he doesn't think I'm misrepresenting him). For a Close enough. What I find amusing is that I think Dan's view of prostitution is actually extremely similar in many ways to my view of religion: Sure, there may be a small number of people doing okay at it, but mostly it is full of really messed up people. I recently read the His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman, and while I enjoyed the story, I did find it lacking in a few areas, especially the third book (daemons appear for some formerly daemonless when you go into a daemon world but not always, specters can sometimes fly and sometimes not, ghosts can sometimes hold together outside the underworld and sometimes not, who is the grace who gave Lyra the power to read the alethiometer and then took it away, absurd ending can only keep 1 window open which was obviously just to make the bittersweet romantic stuff work out, etc.) but what really amused me was reading the reviews on amazon.com. Instead of being critical about the shortcomings of the story, more than a few people complained about the books being marketed to young people and either specificially stated or strongly implied that parents need a chance to indoctrinate their children with religion before it is safe to expose children to Pullman! Heh. I guess the religion fungus can only reliably grow in the dark. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Nov 29, 2004, at 2:24 PM, Richard Baker wrote: Posting what I can only take to be not very serious incitements to kill religious people is certainly counterproductive and manifestly inflammatory. I was wondering when someone would hit upon the idea that perhaps I was being more than a little facetious. There's a serious intent, though, and it comes in the form of a question I really want answered. Suppose there's a group of people (such as the Klan, which does in fact still exist) that actively promotes killing those with whom they don't agree, and which in fact does so from time to time -- and which also strives, through every effort imaginable, to make the lives miserable, even unlivable, of those whom they hate. I would like to know why it's considered so out of line to think of those people, those active oppressors, as viable targets for any kind of retribution, to any scale. I mean, where is the *opposite* line drawn? Where do we say, okay, freedom of expression is one thing -- but you guys must cease this behavior immediately? Is it after the first death? The fiftieth? What if we see it coming in a new cadre who hasn't even done anything yet? Because you *can* see it coming, usually months or even years in advance. Perhaps the ones so strenuously objecting have never been the targets or organized hatred. Maybe that's why people who find my point of view shocking find it so shocking. But when you've lived under that shroud of bigotry, targeted hatred and incessant censure, believe me, your ability to put up with it becomes severely strained. I should never have to hear things like god hats fags or kill a queer for Christ -- and when I do, I think it's entirely understandable that I feel personally targeted, personally threatened. Is it very surprising that I would feel utterly sanguine about eliminating, by any means necessary, those who promote such hateful views? I think what I'm saying here is don't judge me until you've walked a mile in my moccasins. How long am I supposed to put up with the hatred, the loathing, the lies and the threats? WHY am I supposed to put up with any of it? By what right do others condemn me to a life of fear and quiet acceptance of continued social assault? Under whose idea of morality is it appropriate for me to just be quiet and take what I deserve like a good little queer? And do try to come up with better arguments than it makes you no better than them -- that's simply not an acceptable answer. Also try to come up with a better remedy than social discourse; while the ethicists talk, the bigots march and kill. I don't want to be a sacrifice to someone else's idea of nobility. It's MY life and MY liberty that are on the line here. And it is a deeply personal issue that any GLBT person should be aware of and should be fighting like hell to change. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 7:23 PM Subject: Re: So it begins Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 09:24:42PM +, Richard Baker wrote: dubious articles together with accusations of bigotry or Erik talking about religion rotting brains (or whatever; that's not a direct quote, of course, but I hope he doesn't think I'm misrepresenting him). For a Close enough. What I find amusing is that I think Dan's view of prostitution is actually extremely similar in many ways to my view of religion: Sure, there may be a small number of people doing okay at it, but mostly it is full of really messed up people. Wouldn't that have a measureable effect? Like more regular churchgoers suffering from more depression, dying earlier, using drugs more, recoving slower from illness and surgury, the general things one finds with really messed up people? Like one finds with prostitutes? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Nov 29, 2004, at 5:23 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: What I find amusing is that I think Dan's view of prostitution is actually extremely similar in many ways to my view of religion: Sure, there may be a small number of people doing okay at it, but mostly it is full of really messed up people. As a long-time Christian, I couldn't agree with you more. As it turns out, a central fact of a mature understanding of Christianity is that it *is* mostly full of really messed-up people. It's rather like a hospital in that regard. The widespread popularity of a juvenile form of Christianity whose adherents deny that they are really messed-up causes most of the trouble. The point of Christianity is that we are unable to overcome our messed-up-ness on our own, but a supremely loving God reached through our messed-up-ness to make a way for us to be united with each other and with Him. I guess the religion fungus can only reliably grow in the dark. Religion is a fungus, but it's OK for some people? I guess so: like many others, I eat fungi on pizza, in spaghetti sauce, and so forth. They're quite tasty sauteed with garlic and onions. Dave PS: I do not advocate sautéing Christians with garlic and onions. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 08:42:52PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: Wouldn't that have a measureable effect? Yup. Like more regular churchgoers suffering from more depression, dying earlier, using drugs more, recoving slower from illness and surgury, You're right, that is a difference. Prostitution itself is not likely to cause the problems you see in prostitutes, whereas religion itself is likely to cause the problems I see in the thought-processes of many religious people. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 06:58:51PM -0800, Dave Land wrote: Religion is a fungus, but it's OK for some people? Hey, you're paying attention! Yes, I chose that metaphor with some care. PS: I do not advocate sautéing Christians with garlic and onions. Frying in fat is not very healthy, as I'm sure Dan will be glad to provide data on. Grilling, on the other hand? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 9:10 PM Subject: Re: So it begins Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 08:42:52PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: Wouldn't that have a measureable effect? Yup. And, as you should know, most studies on the subject indicate, after correction for gender, immobility, etc. that there is a positive correlation between regular attendance at church and health. Null effects are not ruled out yet, but there is nothing I've seen in a google on the subject that indicates that skeptics are arguing for null results from the data. I have yet to see references to articles on anti-correlation. I'll be happy to supply a list of references if requested, including references to pro and con arguments. But, as I said, the con argument is for no correlation, not anti-correlation. Like more regular churchgoers suffering from more depression, dying earlier, using drugs more, recovering slower from illness and surgery, You're right, that is a difference. Prostitution itself is not likely to cause the problems you see in prostitutes, whereas religion itself is likely to cause the problems I see in the thought-processes of many religious people. You mean them differing with you beliefs? :-) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 09:24:24PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: And, as you should know, most studies on the subject indicate, after And as you would know, if you weren't blocked by early childhood religious indoctrination, wrong data. You are really hopeless on this subject which I why I'm not being serious, but it is quite funny to see. While I'm not surprised that you are unable to overcome your conditioning, I am surprised that you keep replying! (It is amusing to me, but I imagine it is frustrating to you). You mean them differing with you beliefs? :-) No, mental blocks, belief in absurdities, knee-jerk reactions to differences or change, and irrationality. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Erik Reuter wrote: On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 06:58:51PM -0800, Dave Land wrote: Religion is a fungus, but it's OK for some people? Hey, you're paying attention! Yes, I chose that metaphor with some care. PS: I do not advocate sautéing Christians with garlic and onions. Frying in fat is not very healthy, as I'm sure Dan will be glad to provide data on. Grilling, on the other hand? How about stir-frying, which uses very little oil? And tossing in some sliced water chestnuts? Probably a little easier on the digestive system than the garlic and onions Julia can't handle excessive garlic, and breastfeeding child can't handle her eating onions ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Erik Reuter wrote: I recently read the His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman, and while I enjoyed the story, I did find it lacking in a few areas, especially the third book (daemons appear for some formerly daemonless when you go into a daemon world but not always, specters can sometimes fly and sometimes not, ghosts can sometimes hold together outside the underworld and sometimes not, who is the grace who gave Lyra the power to read the alethiometer and then took it away, absurd ending can only keep 1 window open which was obviously just to make the bittersweet romantic stuff work out, etc.) but what really amused me was reading the reviews on amazon.com. Instead of being critical about the shortcomings of the story, more than a few people complained about the books being marketed to young people and either specificially stated or strongly implied that parents need a chance to indoctrinate their children with religion before it is safe to expose children to Pullman! Heh. I guess the religion fungus can only reliably grow in the dark. Oh, as if you aren't going to get your children to the age where they CAN read Pullman without having already let them know at least some of the basics of your religious beliefs! And, gee, maybe you can just monitor what they're reading, and when they're done with the book, DISCUSS it with them! Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Nov 29, 2004, at 7:10 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: You're right, that is a difference. Prostitution itself is not likely to cause the problems you see in prostitutes, whereas religion itself is likely to cause the problems I see in the thought-processes of many religious people. If you define religious behavior as a problem in thought processes, then observe problems in the thought-processes of religious people, you only prove that you have problems in your thought process at least as dire as those you bemoan. Your thinking is evidently blocked by some early atheistic indoctrination that you haven't overcome. Dave Your Own Petard Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
If you watch Nightline this article is almost a summary of a program they had on last week or so. And yes, the quotes sounded just as sanctimonious live as they do in the article. Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Legends Aussie Centurion Mk.5/1 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
If these clowns love Jesus so much, I see nothing wrong with sending them to meet him immediately. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
At 12:58 PM 11/28/2004 -0500 Gary Nunn wrote: So it begins. So what begins?More demonization of Christians? Sometimes I think that for all the talk about religious tolerance, that some people believe that Christians really shouldn't be permitted to participate in the political process. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Nov 28, 2004, at 11:52 AM, JDG wrote: At 12:58 PM 11/28/2004 -0500 Gary Nunn wrote: So it begins. So what begins?More demonization of Christians? I didn't realize reporting of facts qualified as demonization. Or is it your argument, instead, that these people are not actually Christians? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
So what begins?More demonization of Christians? Sometimes I think that for all the talk about religious tolerance, that some people believe that Christians really shouldn't be permitted to participate in the political process. JDG One of my points was, that his comments clearly show a fundamental lack of tolerance for those that have a different viewpoint or belief. So who is showing the intolerance, people that are concerned about religious fanatics (regardless of their religion) influencing the administration and government, or the supposedly good Christian that was quoted as saying that he could care less about those that are not Christians? I am a Christian, and this guy scares me. His comments remind me of other religious fanatics that have justified intolerance, hate and oppression, all In the name of [their] God. Gary _ If you can't take the heat, don't tickle the dragon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
JDG said: Sometimes I think that for all the talk about religious tolerance, that some people believe that Christians really shouldn't be permitted to participate in the political process. Isn't George HW Bush on record as implying that about atheists? (If the particular comment I'm thinking about has been debunked, I think it would be a relief to know it.) Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
So what begins?More demonization of Christians? Sometimes I think that for all the talk about religious tolerance, that some people believe that Christians really shouldn't be permitted to participate in the political process. I would note, John, that these are direct quotes done in front of a news camera. Tolerance is a two way streak. Before one can be motivated to tolerate Christianity, the Christians should show their own tolerance. That is not what I heard from the Evangelicals that were interviewed on Nightline. And Warren, that sort of altitude is not going to win you any arguments, and in fact invalidates any sort of rational argument you with to present. Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Legends Aussie Centurion Mk.5/1 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
Warren said: If these clowns love Jesus so much, I see nothing wrong with sending them to meet him immediately. So do you have a wormhole time machine I don't know about or are you implying that you believe he really was the Son of God? Rich GOU Neca Eos Omnes: Deus Suos Agnoscet ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
- Original Message - From: Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 1:22 PM Subject: RE: So it begins Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time So what begins?More demonization of Christians? Sometimes I think that for all the talk about religious tolerance, that some people believe that Christians really shouldn't be permitted to participate in the political process. JDG One of my points was, that his comments clearly show a fundamental lack of tolerance for those that have a different viewpoint or belief. So who is showing the intolerance, people that are concerned about religious fanatics (regardless of their religion) influencing the administration and government, or the supposedly good Christian that was quoted as saying that he could care less about those that are not Christians? I am a Christian, and this guy scares me. His comments remind me of other religious fanatics that have justified intolerance, hate and oppression, all In the name of [their] God. I agree Gary. I can remember listening to and watching my Great Aunts and my Grandmother discuss how slavery was approved by the Bible (and how those Damn Niggers should shut the hell up) while my Mother and my Aunts gritted their teeth and kept their (contrary) opinions to themselves. This ironically was at our family Thanksgiving celebration. (Not just a dinner, 70 or 80 people at an all day affair constitutes something greater I think) So...does anyone think that giving potential slavers a political voice and an inside with the President is a good thing? Aside The above memory is a matter of shame for me. These kinds of opinions were endemic among the hicks/rednecks I am descended from, related to, or was otherwise surrounded by during the early days of my life. That I lived through the times when these opinions were changing (and that I was a part of that change in my own small way) is a source of great pride. That my parents were people who became opposed to the tide of racism while they were still young ( younger than half my current age) makes me rightfully proud of them. IMO it is telling that religion and morality were misused to justify slavery in just about exactly the same way issues are being framed currently. I am not swayed. /Aside xponent Nests Of Assholes Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
--- Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't George HW Bush on record as implying that about atheists? (If the particular comment I'm thinking about has been debunked, I think it would be a relief to know it.) Rich Actually, Timothy Noah from Slate, who absolutely hates George Bush, when asked to find one thing that he thought good about Bush named Bush's consistent expressions of tolerance towards atheism. See: http://www.slate.com/id/2109228 Noah, having gone from a decent journalist a few years ago to virtually the caricature of the most obnoxious features of Bush-haters, is a particularly striking source of such a comment. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
JDG wrote: So what begins?More demonization of Christians? Sometimes I think that for all the talk about religious tolerance, that some people believe that Christians really shouldn't be permitted to participate in the political process. Anyone who works to have the government and the courts subverted to their own personal belief system against the will of the majority shouldn't be permitted to participate in the political process. I don't know anybody who thinks gays shouldn't be allowed to display affection in public, yet these guys want that for the whole country. The sad part of the whole thing is thing is their use of the word Christian to describe themselves. Where's the love and tolerance that Jesus spoke of, what happened to the concept of free will that God gave us (and how does that tie in with God intervening in an election?). There are greater evils in the world today that need our faith and strength to confront them than the petty little affronts these guys are worried about... Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
Gautam said: Actually, Timothy Noah from Slate, who absolutely hates George Bush, when asked to find one thing that he thought good about Bush named Bush's consistent expressions of tolerance towards atheism. See: http://www.slate.com/id/2109228 That's interesting, but also the wrong Bush. I was thinking about the reports that at a press conference while campainging for the Presidency, Bush Sr said: I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On 28 Nov 2004, at 10:51 pm, Richard Baker wrote: Gautam said: Actually, Timothy Noah from Slate, who absolutely hates George Bush, when asked to find one thing that he thought good about Bush named Bush's consistent expressions of tolerance towards atheism. See: http://www.slate.com/id/2109228 That's interesting, but also the wrong Bush. I was thinking about the reports that at a press conference while campainging for the Presidency, Bush Sr said: I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God. President George Bush, to Robert Sherman of American Atheist Press, at the Chicago airport while announcing federal disaster relief for Illinois. Quoted in plenty places. But he also apparently said I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home. -- Ken Olson, President, Chairman and Founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
At 02:39 PM 11/28/2004 -0500 Damon Agretto wrote: So what begins?More demonization of Christians? Sometimes I think that for all the talk about religious tolerance, that some people believe that Christians really shouldn't be permitted to participate in the political process. I would note, John, that these are direct quotes done in front of a news camera. Look, I probably would not have made those comments. Nevertheless, it is particularly annoying that after moral conservatives are an integral part of the winning coalition in the most recent election that the first thing religious conservative leaders are asked is what they plan to do for the *losing* side in the last election. And yet, somehow when the Democrats win, we don't see Patricia Ireland, Jesse Jackson, or the head of ACT-UP asked on how they plan to reach out to religious conservatives, do we? And then, even after getting asked a dumb question, and then giving a dumb answer, we predictibly see the dread-invoking post of so it begins and talk about payback.Somehow, I don't think we'd be seeing the same posts on Brin-L and articles in the MSM about payback to Big Labor and animal rights activists following a Democrat win. Again, the only conclusion I can draw from using loaded language like so it begins is that religious conservatives either shouldn't be allowed to participate in the political process, or that if they are, they shouldn't ever be allowed to actually *win* and maybe enact some portions of their Agenda. Apparently the nation's social policy is supposed to be left to the *losers* of election, or better yet, to judges who were never even elected in the first place! JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
On Nov 28, 2004, at 12:39 PM, Damon Agretto wrote: And Warren, that sort of altitude is not going to win you any arguments, and in fact invalidates any sort of rational argument you with to present. Not when I'm not presenting any rational argument, which would be pointless in dealing with fanatics. It's tiresome -- very tiresome -- continually being the downtrodden minority. After a while you have to stop seeking rational détente; some fanatics will never get there. I find it striking that when the victims of bigotry start using the same language as the bigots, we're told shame on you or to ramp back the rhetoric, as though it's poor form for us to defend ourselves. I don't even buy the you're no better argument, because I didn't throw the first punch. It's the *oppressors* that are in the wrong here, not those of us who will use any force necessary to defend our rights and our lives. -- On Nov 28, 2004, at 12:45 PM, Richard Baker wrote: So do you have a wormhole time machine I don't know about or are you implying that you believe he really was the Son of God? Neither. I was being facetious. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 7:56 PM Subject: Re: So it begins Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time At 02:39 PM 11/28/2004 -0500 Damon Agretto wrote: So what begins?More demonization of Christians? Sometimes I think that for all the talk about religious tolerance, that some people believe that Christians really shouldn't be permitted to participate in the political process. I would note, John, that these are direct quotes done in front of a news camera. Look, I probably would not have made those comments. Nevertheless, it is particularly annoying that after moral conservatives are an integral part of the winning coalition in the most recent election that the first thing religious conservative leaders are asked is what they plan to do for the *losing* side in the last election. And yet, somehow when the Democrats win, we don't see Patricia Ireland, Jesse Jackson, or the head of ACT-UP asked on how they plan to reach out to religious conservatives, do we? I didn't see anything in to that regard in the article Gary posted. And then, even after getting asked a dumb question, and then giving a dumb answer, we predictibly see the dread-invoking post of so it begins and talk about payback.Somehow, I don't think we'd be seeing the same posts on Brin-L and articles in the MSM about payback to Big Labor and animal rights activists following a Democrat win. I didn't see the dumb question, but I did see a demand on the part of a religious conservative in the article. Again, the only conclusion I can draw from using loaded language like so it begins is that religious conservatives either shouldn't be allowed to participate in the political process, or that if they are, they shouldn't ever be allowed to actually *win* and maybe enact some portions of their Agenda. Apparently the nation's social policy is supposed to be left to the *losers* of election, or better yet, to judges who were never even elected in the first place! Wah Wah Wah!!! We aren't happy when we lose' we aren't happy when we win. Wah Wah Wah!!! We aren't happy when we get our way because there is always something new to hate. Wah Wah Wah!!! People don't respect our right to be unreasonably hateful. Wah Wah Wah!!! Sorry John, but I have no spare towels for you to cry on. xponent Whiny Baby Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
John wrote giving a dumb answer, we predictably see the dread-invoking post of so it begins and talk about payback.Somehow, I don't think we'd be seeing the same posts on Brin-L and articles in the MSM about payback to Big Labor and animal rights activists following a Democrat win. John, I respectfully submit to you, that perhaps you read way, way too much into my comment of So It begins. Or maybe not. Perhaps I am misreading what you are saying, but just for the record, the term Payback was part of the actual title of the article by ABCnews.com. I personally expected this type of response from the religious community, I was just a little surprised that it began so soon after the election. Again, the only conclusion I can draw from using loaded language like so it begins is that religious conservatives either shouldn't be allowed to participate in the political process, or that if they are, they shouldn't ever be allowed to actually *win* and maybe enact some portions of their In my humble opinion, after reading some of the things that James Kennedy has said and written, I would hardly label him as religious conservative, I think that he crosses the line well into the territory of being labeled as a religious fanatic. Frankly, I think that he is right up there with the Taliban in the area of intolerance and oppression. But again, that is strictly my person opinion. As for the question of should religious conservatives be allowed to participate in the political process, well, yes and no. Should they be allowed to participate: yes. Should they be allowed to influence the administration to follow a religious agenda, NO. The Bush administration has dangerously blurred the line separating church and state, and I think that separation will get more and more blurry in the next four years, and that scares me. Bush has already proven that he can't (or won't) take a moderate position on issues influenced by religion. Again just my humble opinions. Gary ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 8:49 PM Subject: Re: So it begins Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time On Nov 28, 2004, at 12:39 PM, Damon Agretto wrote: And Warren, that sort of altitude is not going to win you any arguments, and in fact invalidates any sort of rational argument you with to present. Not when I'm not presenting any rational argument, which would be pointless in dealing with fanatics. Out of curiosity, have any of them stated that they saw nothing wrong with killing Godless atheists? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
William T Goodall wrote: But he also apparently said I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them. *lol* That's cute. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
I find it striking that when the victims of bigotry start using the same language as the bigots, we're told shame on you or to ramp back the rhetoric, as though it's poor form for us to defend ourselves. I don't even buy the you're no better argument, because I didn't throw the first punch. It's the *oppressors* that are in the wrong here, not those of us who will use any force necessary to defend our rights and our lives. That's because if you do, it stops seeming to be about social justice, and starts to be about *vengeance.* It's not about defending yourselves, but about being the better person and not resort to the same harassing techniques the bigots use. So when you *do* use that sort of language, you become little better than them. Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Legends Aussie Centurion Mk.5/1 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
At 10:44 PM 11/28/2004 -0500 Gary Nunn wrote: As for the question of should religious conservatives be allowed to participate in the political process, well, yes and no. Should they be allowed to participate: yes. Should they be allowed to influence the administration to follow a religious agenda, NO. That looks like a distinction without a difference to me. It sounds to me like you are saying that religious conservatives can participate in the political process, but only so long as they support policies that they view to be morally wrong under their religious beliefs. Uh huh. The Bush administration has dangerously blurred the line separating church and state, Which Church would that be? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
From: JDG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] At 10:44 PM 11/28/2004 -0500 Gary Nunn wrote: As for the question of should religious conservatives be allowed to participate in the political process, well, yes and no. Should they be allowed to participate: yes. Should they be allowed to influence the administration to follow a religious agenda, NO. That looks like a distinction without a difference to me. It sounds to me like you are saying that religious conservatives can participate in the political process, but only so long as they support policies that they view to be morally wrong under their religious beliefs. Uh huh. I guess my issue is when people want things banned. People can object to policies all they like, but when they want them banned, and others do not, it becomes more of a concern. I don't support lots of things, but I live with the fact that the majority does, and get on with my life, trying to live my life, by my rules. I don't want my morals forced down the throats of everyone else, and equally, vice-versa. So, yes, participate, for sure, but control the agenda, a minority setting the moral agenda, and banning things, no. Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
