From: "David D.W. Downey" <admin@CyberSpaceTechnologies.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 12:25:58 +0800
To: paulmerrill@acm.org
Subject: Re: The BIG Lie (Jesus Confesses)
In-Reply-To: <199708081253.GAA06495@wombat.sk.sympatico.ca>
Message-ID: <33EC2214.6BEA2C9A@cyberspacetechnologies.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>Paul H. Merrill wrote: 
> judeo-christian isn't a religion.  Christian is.
> 
Judeo- Christian is a subsect of Christianity in it's generic form.
(Both my parents are ministers, and this has been drilled into my head.)

> I have read the Constitution and the history behind it.  >The US was founded by people trying to escape religious >persecution and/or trying to get rich.  In case you can't >figure it out, forcing your views down my throat IS >religious persecution -- exactly the same sort that sent
> the Pilgrims off on the Mayflower.
> 
1) I am not forcing my beliefs down *anyone's* throat. I do not seek to
control but to inform. As to the constitution, I served 8 years in the
military so I have a pretty good idea of what it does and does not mean.
I do not advocate internet control to the point of demanding that site
rankings or any such become mandatory. I do however agree that if we can
not police ourselves then this should be a warning that others may do it
for us. When the Protestants (originally the Quakers), came here, you
are correct in why they did come here, yet they also agreed among
themselves to police their actions themselves. This is something we are
failing to do. We are allowing stuff that children need not to see at
certain ages to proliferate all in the name of "If we don't allow this
freedom of expression to take place, it sends a signal that *all*
freedoms are up for grabs." That is simply not true. What is being
proposed is that a little common decency be exerted. After all, these
are children we are talking about. They do not have the capacities that
we do to process all information relating to certain issues. We have
experiences on our side that children do not, just through sheer lack on
their part of numbers of years on this planet. I mean are you really
suggesting that a child has the cognative abilities, at say the age of
6, to understand and make an informed opinion about sex with an older
person? I hope not! I mean, let's be realistic here. We have knowledge
gained thru living that children do not. I am in no way suggesting that
we blindly stuff all things remotely offensive off the net. I am saying
let us be responsible enough to give this information to our children in
doses they can handle. And yes, I will be the judge of what I feel my
children can handle. What is so wrong with adults putting a statement on
their sites that say, Hey parents, there *may* be info here that you
might want to be aware of for the kids' sakes.?

> That statement is somewhat similar to saying that if you >don't like your chains you are free to suggest the stocks >or perhaps rope.
> 
No, what I am saying is that if he doesn't like what has been proposed
to suggest an alternative in an adult fashion. I don't see how slamming
and belittling helps discussions.


> As long as the scum that gravitates toward LEAs and the >Government continue to do so it is relatively stupid to >express (or defend) views outside the accepted norm in an >open fashion.  (I guess that makes me sorta stupid, huh?)
> 
Not true. I will never agree with what our government proposes. In fact
I have an entire website dedicated to going *against* what the current
government proposes. I do not believe in the taking away of rights or
the forcing of a country's people to *have* to do half of what the
American government proposes. What I do suggest is that we, as a
community, need to look to ways that we can balance these issues out in
a manner that is agreeable to all involved. Inflammatory attacks,
degradation of someone based on cultural or religious beliefs has no
place in the discussions. The only reason I flamed at TruthMonger is
because I have only seen postings from that person that violates that
very critical issue. Everyone has the right to their opionions right,
wrong or otherwise. I just got sick of hearing him flame everyone with a
contrary view. And he seems to do this under the suggested banner of
truth. That I do not agree with. I don't condemn him for his views. They
are just as important as mine. I condemn his actions in slamming others
for not agreeing with *him*!

> I have two of my own and I don't see how "protecting" them >in the ways that you seem to like would do anything other >than warp their worldview to such a level that they will be >esay prey for whatever scum they run into in the meatworld.
> 
There is a difference between warping their views and ensuring that they
are mentally able to engage themselves in these issues. The issues that
befall each of us require an ability to see deeper into the causes,
actions and reactions of those with whom we interact. We have many
things, as adults, that we can bring to the tables of rationality and
discussion due to the fact that we learned through prior experiences.
Each and every one of us have sought guidance on any myriad of issues.
We are leaving a confusing mess for the next generation. I am just
saying that we may need to band together to give all of us some sort of
cue card as to what issues may be faced at various stops along the way
as we ride the information highway.
 
> I don't know about TruthMonger but I did listen to the >underlying theme of the issues before us and I found that >it was actually scum-suckers and other bottom feeders >trying their damnedest to steal my freedom. That's why I'm >typing here and now.
> 
I will grant that there are some out there that advocate the taking away
of rights. I am not one of them. I have bullet holes in me because I am
willing to put my life on the line for freedom and rights. I don't agree
with alot of what hardliners have to say. But they also have a say in
this. I will defend my rights and the rights and freedoms of others with
my last breath if need be. All I am saying is that there is a
constructive way to do things. Let's do it that way. I am no stranger to
being a politician's trump card to be played when all else fails to get
folks to listen at the talk tables. That is the very nature of
soldiering. Yet,  I also am not afraid to turn what I learned from them
against them if they should so force that issue. In short, yes, I will
use violence if *all* else fails to get them to listen to reason. But
that is after exhausting all other avenues of approach. The reason I
slammed "TruthMonger", is because I have yet to hear anything from him
other than pure rhetoric and inflamation. I am willing to listen to what
he has to say. Provided that he at least has some meat to his words, not
libel and slander. These solve nothing, and contribute even less.

> The hatemonger that I see in this interchange is not >TruthMonger and it's not me -- Let's see, I guess that >leaves . . .
> 
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you feel that I am a
HateMonger, you are entitled to that opinion. I am entitled to my
opinion that TruthMonger is anything but a TruthMonger, but is a
HateMonger. I will defend both your and mine opinions. I believe in the
ability to agree to disagree. I agree. I may have been hotheaded and
gone too far in my last email. For that I will apologize, both to
members of this list, as well as TruthMonger. I will not apologize for
my opinion of him.