From: "David D.W. Downey" <admin@CyberSpaceTechnologies.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 13:21:43 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The BIG Lie (Jesus Confesses)
In-Reply-To: <199708082242.AAA20104@basement.replay.com>
Message-ID: <33EC319A.4B93198@cyberspacetechnologies.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Before we go on with this, let me just say that I disagree with alot of
the "christianity" presented in today's world. I go to no church, for
which my parents do indoubtably lament emensely. (They are both
ministers. Ironic) I am open to many different views. My best friend in
the world is buhdist(sp?) and I heavily study martial arts, in which I
excell only because of my study of the culture and religous background
involved with martial arts. I am the *farthest* person from advocating
or backing many of the suggested plans of the christian community in
dealing with these issues.


Anonymous wrote:

> 
> The size of the majority does NOT have anything to do with >what's "right", particularily when it comes to religion.
> 
You are correct, I was merely responding to his statement.

> That much I have read.  And nowhere do I see that >"Christian beliefs" are the cornerstone of our country.  
>
To show how much this country *was* in fact based upon Christianity, one
has only to look at our money. "In *God* we trust. Also, the majority of
our founding fathers were in fact christians. Yet they correctly
surmised that plans needed to be made and coopertive efforts begun
between all the people in order for harmonious living to be even a
remote possibility.

>As a matter of fact, I see writing that specifically says >that religion is NOT a part of our government, and that the >two shall NOT intermix.  Very specific. 
> 
Yes, yet also that ruling came into existence *long* after the
constitution had been designed, ratified, and accepted by the original
colonists. And this was passed after the Church became far too powerful,
and a few tried to influence the whole via a emensely powerful political
base. (We can thank the Roman Catholic church for the necessity of this
law.)

>SOME of the founders of our country were personally very >religious. But some of them were atheists.  They were a >mix of beliefs.  However, all of them felt the persecution >of the English theocracy, and were writing the Constitution >specifically to avoid creating such an evil monstrosity >here.  I think they did a good job.  
>
They did an *excellent* job. I fought to ensure that the work they did,
did not come undone in our time. (I am sorry, I can not go into
specifics.) Also, they were correct in trying to keep the English form
of government out of the new country. Unfortunately, I doubt if any of
them would be happy with the government of today, as many of the spirits
residing within the wording of the constitution are blatently violated
on an everyday basis by our current government. I am sure many would be
down right pissed at what is taking place today!

>They wanted the freedom to practice their own religions >here.  They officially did NOT lay down WHICH religions >were to be practiced. That's why we all fight to keep the >net out of Christian hands.
> 
I do not know how to correctly word my thoughts on that statement so I
will decline for the moment. You seem to think that I am one of the
christian members who thinks that anything even remotely repulsive or
offbeat should be expunged from the net. You could not be more wrong.
But I do not know the words to explain what I feel and think on this
issue. Or at least in a way that would not come out wrong.

> My surefire plan, which has worked **100%** is to monitor >my child's net surfing. He's 9, and I really don't want him >stumbling into www.seXXX.whatever.
> 
I agree that that is one of the things needed. Responsible parenting. I
don't want mine doing that either. I guess what I am saying is that, for
those parents that do not do that, don't we have an obligation to at
least think of those children that do *not* have that? I mean, don't we
at least have the moral obligation to *not* take the stance of "Fuck
them!"? I care for all children, not just my own. These children are
going to take the reins of this world from *us*. They will either
contribute to this world or detract from it. I'm suggesting that we come
together to responsibly teach them about the world around them. It is
big, complex, and scary, even for adults. Let's not just throw them to
the wolves and say "Fend for yourselves." There are some things that
have the major potential to be harmful to a child's psyche out on the
net and in real life. No, let's not ban things just because they are
offensive to some. I do suggest that some things have no place either in
cyberspace or the real world. Why? Because society in general has agreed
that these things are an affront to the community as a whole. Either
locally or globally. Take NAMBLA (National Man/Boy Lovers Association),
who feel that a 5 year old child is capable of making an informed
decision on whether it is OK for him (the child) to have sex with an
older man. 5 YEARS OLD!!??!!?? I don't think so. And neither does a
*majority* of the world population! These types of things are policed by
law enforcement agencies on and off the net, majoratively, by the
general public across the globe. *These* issues are the ones that I
would ban. Yes, if that violates the rights and freedoms of a few, then
yes. I would do it, for the good of the majority. I'm not talking about
pissing in a cup and putting a cross in it and then calling it art.
These issues are mundane compared to issues like NAMBLA. I don't agree
that it is art, but I don't advocate denying them the right to do so.

> When he's old enough to handle reality when he trips over >it, I'll let him.  That's MY job.  Not yours.
> 
I never said it was my job. I would use my best judgement in the event
of your absence, but when you are available it is definitely your
choice.

> Do you let your child walk unescorted through the streets >of New York City?  London?  Moscow?  Singapore?  Chicago?  >Detroit?  Beijing?  If so, I hope that you are arrested for >neglect.  You have no business turning an unescorted child >loose on the streets.
> 
I agree wholeheartedly and would testify to such at your trial. Yet,
then the question becomes one of: If you feel that way about the streets
of NY and the like, then why the  difference of opinion about the
internet? Is it because it is a virtual place? You think of physical
damage to the child. Ideas and mental damage have far longer, and
deeper, lasting effects than most physical injuries. 

> Parents who do not monitor their children on the net are >as guilty of neglect as those who would turn them loose on >the streets of a foreign city.
> 
Once again we are in agreeance.

> You have no business turning an unescorted child loose on >the web. Are you prepared to have him put his e-mail >address into some stranger's form?  www.childstalkers.com >or www.lolitawatch.org(tm) might love to have it.
> 
Yet again we agree.

> The web is an adult place, where adult thought is allowed >to flow.
> 
Yes it is, yet more and more children are gaining access to the net
everyday. One major contributing factor to this is the use of computers
in school, of which I am a major advocate.

> 
> The whole point of allowing adult thought is this:
> 
>     We couldn't even have this discussion on a
>     "Judeo-Christian-child-safe" Internet.
> 
> Think carefully about this.
> 
I never suggested that we sanatize the net into that.

> Now, to answer why we're opposed to ratings, look at the >"voluntary" ratings labels placed on music albums.  There >are major discount stores that WILL NOT CARRY CDs that are >labeled "Warning: Adult Lyrics." The "voluntary" label >means the loss of thousands of retail outlets, and the >potential loss of tens of thousands of sales, all because >the record company thought it best to voluntarily be >"child-safe". Other stores require you to be 18 to purchase >them, and require ID. There are municipalities that have >considered laws to make it illegal to sell these >"voluntarily labeled" albums to children under 18.
> 
If the songs are about expression then, no. Don't ban them. But if they
advocate the killing of cops or how great it is to be a gangster and
shoot other people like Vanilla Ice and Snoop Doggy Dog did, then yes. I
say ban them. Why? They violate the very principles of life... life is
sacred, and it's they only one we got.

> So, if there were a net rating system that became widely >used, you can bet your child's college money on the fact >that every major corporation in the United States will put >a ratings filter on their firewall.  The entire Internet >service to Singapore, Malasia, Indonesia and China will be >filtered by ratings.  Half the ISPs in the USA will
>probably follow suit, as will AOL and Prodigy.  That is why >a rating system is so bad.
> 
There is a major difference bewteen rating a site and completely banning
a site due to it's rating in that system. No organization has the right
to make the decision for me about whether or not I can have access to
that site even if it falls into the "filth" rating. That is *my* choice
and decision to make not theirs'. Therein lies the problem, not in the
rating system itself. The problem develops when these groups tell me I
can not access them. Their rating system, my choices.

> There's plenty of precedent for clamping down on >ThoughtCrime.
> 
Define your idea of thoughtcrime and we'll see just how much we really
disagree.

>YOU want to clamp down on ThoughtCrime.  That's why YOU are
> dangerous to society.  Not the pornographers.  YOU, the >censors.
> 
LOL, not *even* going to waste time on *that* statement!