Posted for Fair Use, yada, yada, yada.

Link

This article, by House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, is a fresh voice in the cacaphony surrounding every unfortunate death due to misuse of firearms. Comments anyone?

-- Craig (sofpj@netscape.net), March 28, 2000

Answers

I wish this would be shouted from the rooftops at the capitol. If it was would the media carry it? Would it be on Rather, Brokaw and Jennings and would it hit home with Joe average? What about with Soccer Moms? Would they even care about the "why" or would they fall into the old and tired rhetoric of "it's the guns fault, we need more laws and control". blah blah blah. I always thought the Justices misinterpreted the seperation of church and state. Only an extremely conservative court can change the direction now.

Delay is correct of course, but I fear he is screaming into the wind.

-- Outta beer (East of the smoke stack@usa.here), March 28, 2000.

Something about this otherwise reasonable presentation makes me a bit uncomfortable. There's a subtext implying some governmental role in the imposition of absolute moral values, according to the dogma and tenets of some "approved" religion. No, he's careful not to say this straight out.

All too often, formal religion is used either to impose or inhibit specific behaviors otherwise socially neutral, or to provide a rationale for actions consistent with a fairly narrow self-interest.

In the former category, we have blue laws of various kinds, and as Dylan sang, when we want our own way we believe we have "God on our side." As a practical matter, kindness, restraint and respect are not the property of any particular religion, nor do they require absolute definitions to be workable.

The golden rule is practical. You can even do a rather Kantian abstraction, to "do unto everyone as you think everyone should always do unto everyone else generally." This doesn't need the carrot and stick of a formal religion's promise or threat of a suitable afterlife to make sense.

Conversely, organized religions tend to be intolerant where intolerance is not called for. This might be an artifact of absolutes, which are necessarily arbitrarily (and usually selfishly) applied to a world of all-encompassing ambiguity. Appropriate social behavior, the dictates of conscience, require the application of judgment. Judgment is fatally handicapped by the arbitrary application of absolutes.

Instead, such absolutes inevitably lead to the attempt to legislate morality. People are prohibited from certain behaviors because those behaviors are "bad for your soul". Legislated morality assumes both that the legislators know what's good for you better than you do, and that "immoral" behavior should be a crime even if there are no victims. Absolute values do not allow for improvement or adaptation to changing circumstances.

I'm a believer in a moral compass, in respect for self and others, in a golden rule. But when politicians start talking about a return to the virtues of religion, I start to worry. To a politician, this means passing "moral" laws, not my idea of freedom.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 28, 2000.

Flint: Yeah, what you said.

Outta: What, you must prefer that fresh unsoiled rhetoric of "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

Seriously, is this really anything more than a guy who knows what side his bread is buttered on.

look down at the bottom under Ideological/Single Issue

or how about:

lo ok whose in third place

Or is this the paragon of moral virtues that we're talking about:

link

-- abc (123@456.789), March 28, 2000.

Everything Flint said, and then some.

There is something in human nature which compels us to search for patterns. Most of us are not comfortable unless a pattern can be ascertained. This is the absolutism to which Flint refers. We must find the EXACT reason why things are occuring. There seems to be few people who are willing to live in the gray area of relativism.

The example here is a politician stating that there is an absolute reason for all of these children killing children-A loss of religious values and the application of tolerance(?) instead of these good ol'fashioned values. Does there have to be a reason which ties all of these discrete murders together?? Could they all have had a different reason for happening?? There is also a danger in the other viewpoint; that it is the lack of gun control laws to address these murders. This is another form of absolutism, and another attempt to lump together these crimes into a "simple" explanation.

I do not claim to have the answers, but I do abhor anybody telling me what my moral values should be. There are a myriad of problems in today's society, and our children do not feel safe in the face of them. There are cops in New York city profiling african-americans and killing them for what appears to be sport. There is planting of evidence and false charges in Los Angeles, again predominantly against minorities. Does this not have an effect on our children??

What is happening with our children is much more complex than saying it is a lack of values or a lack of laws.

I wish people like this politician would keep their morals to themselves.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 28, 2000.

Flint,

I don't see Delay or any Republican for that matter trying to legislate morality. That would be an impossible task. And whose morality would it be that they would legislate if they chose to do so?

Government is so fearful of any mixture of church and state that they've bent over backwards in the other direction in trying to keep them seperate. Not only is it unpopular for people to practice their religous tenets in public but it is shunned by our society. Or thought of as strange. Religion is relagated to the backroom so to speak. I find it disturbing that an after-school religious club is disallowed on school property and the seperation of church and state is cited as the reason. People are in effect told to keep their religion in their church because it mind offend someone.

I don't want any more laws passed either. Especially moral ones but I dont' want there public practice abridged by legislation or judicial decree either.

If everyone vountarily practiced the Golden Rule we would be a much safer, saner and happier society.

Don't hold your breath, though.

-- Outta beer (East of the smoke stack@usa.here), March 28, 2000.

"...the cultural elites have in engaged in a campaign to drive religious value from public life."

See there they go again, subtle, but still trying to tell us that religion and moral values should be part and parcel of political life, and that they, the great, shining, moral examples should determine those values. When politicians want something, they immediately invoke the name of God to lend an air of sacredness to their requests or ploys.

A fresh voice? Bah! He's just doing a little self-promotion, by pushing popular buttons. How clever, but nothing new; they all do it.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 28, 2000.

Tom Delay Can Kiss My Ass

-- Good Ol' Boys Suck (hypocrisy@its.finest), March 28, 2000.

abc,

Outta: What, you must prefer that fresh unsoiled rhetoric of "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

Not rhetoric but fact. Objects don't move unless acted upon by some force. Objects at rest stay at rest. I'm rusty who was that; Newton?

-- Outta beer (East of the smoke stack@usa.here), March 28, 2000.

"...the cultural elites have in engaged in a campaign to drive religious value from public life." -gilda

In the shades of Hillary, it must be a vast left-wing cospiracy. haha

I'd be curious to know how many people who consider themselves to be cultured intellectuals are non-religous.

Doesn't the semi-socialistic government that we have make moral judgements when it legislates? It's inherent. Social security, welfare, food stamps; all these programs are moral political programs. Unless we look at them cynically as a systmatic way to garner votes and hence power. Probably some of both.

-- Outta beer (East of the smoke stack@usa.here), March 28, 2000.

I have been ignoring DeLay for years [e.g., didn't read the above link]. It is something that I practice on a regular basis. It has worked well for me.

While you may have something useful to say on the subject, beginning with DeLay is a non-starter. Flint got that one right.

Best wishes,,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 28, 2000.

Outta-- Unfortunately you're using LOGIC, a form of intelligence which always escapes the gun grabbers. Theirs is myst covered land of emotion and impulse. 'Course they really DO have an agenda -- driven by the Globalist/UN crowd which openly states that all small arms must be removed from the public. Arguing with that agenda is useless.

Those seeking a "gun free" utopia should move to New York, Wash.DC, or other such places. There you can dial 9-1-1 and pray when an armed intruder breaks into your home in the middle of the night. Or perhaps 'gunless' England, where folks have taken to using TURNIPS among other objects to hurt & kill folks.

Those with any doubts should go to the United Nations site and check out Agenda 21 and other documents. While you're at it, check out the charter of the UN plus their other plans for this planet. Like what you see?

-- HelpGetThe (UNoutofThe@USA.com), March 28, 2000.

Thank God so many of us are packin'. Imagine if we lived in one of those uncivilized countries like Canada or New Zealand...

In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany and 9,390 in the United States.

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), March 28, 2000.

HelpGetThe,

"Theirs is myst covered land of emotion and impulse."

I believe you described what the foundation of modern liberalism rests on. Emotion, without it, liberalism would crumble. It is the single most significant factor of liberalism IMHO.

I feel your pain. Do it for the children. There are other mantra's, need I go on.

How did Bill Clinton get elected to a second term? The womans vote. Somehow he appealed to them. Did he foolem with slick words and empathy? He fooled enough of them, you betcha. Brilliant emotional marketing that's for sure.

Logic takes a back seat to emotion in the liberal playbook. If guns continue to be a major factor the Presidential race look for algore to utilize emotion to the max. The press will are willing accomplices.

I admit liberals bring out the "emotion" in me. I end up throwing empty beer cans at the TV whenver the likes of Clinton, Gore and Gephardt grace the screen with their filthy spin.

-bartender! shots all around! Tequila!

-- Outta beer (East of the smoke stack@usa.here), March 28, 2000.

Well after reading the link that Hypocrisy posted, Tom Delay is even worse than I thought.

Outta' Beer you and your big bloated beer belly are so clever potificating on morals and prayer and trotting out your favorite stereotype of liberals.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 28, 2000.

Wow, what a firestorm! And none of you appear to have addressed the issue that DeLay raises, which is WHY. Why are 6 year olds taking guns to school? Irrespective of the method, what is it that impells children to kill their classmates? What is it that society has failed to instill in its young that leads them into violence?

I don't have the answers, only my personal experience of raising one daughter. Who teaches music, who respects other people, who has her own faith in Diety, who reveres all life, and who understands violence and WHEN its use is appropriate. In other words, a pretty good kid any of you would be proud of.

Guess I just don't get it about kids these days.........

-- Craig (sofpj@netscape.net), March 28, 2000.

Craig:

Why are 6 year olds taking guns to school? Irrespective of the method, what is it that impells children to kill their classmates? What is it that society has failed to instill in its young that leads them into violence?

Because the Republicans control Congress :o). There is a correlation.

Best wishes from an independent,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 28, 2000.

Outta' Beer you and your big bloated beer belly are so clever potificating on morals and prayer and trotting out your favorite stereotype of liberals. -gilda

Remember Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt during the Republican revolution and the contract with America in '94? They said children will be dieing in the streets from lack of food and care if Republicans were elected. And that's not emotional? Did the press ever call them on it? Nope

My 80 year old aunt voted for Bill Clinton for his 2nd term because she was terrified that the Repbulicans were going to cut social security and let her die poor. Didn't happen. Terrorizing the elderly for political gain. Real nice.

Let's not even get started about how the libs use the environment. G

ps I am thin and in damn good shape.

-- Outta beer (East of the smoke stack@usa.here), March 28, 2000.

Why are 6 year olds taking guns to school? Irrespective of the method, what is it that impells children to kill their classmates? What is it that society has failed to instill in its young that leads them into violence?

Because the Republicans control Congress :o). There is a correlation -z

Most of the ills created by Congress in this century can be traced to the Dems who held Congress for the majority of the last 70 years. Decrease of personal responsibility by the increase of the paternal govt state. is a large factor. But ultimately Govt doesn't and shouldn't raise children parents do.

--Thoughts scattered like empty beer cans, gotta run.

-- Outta beer (East of the smoke stack@usa.here), March 28, 2000.

Outa Beer:

I guess that we have to agree to disagree. My correlation holds water. These things became a problem after the 1994 election.:o) In case you haven't noticed this is my impression of the classic and brillant Hawk case for a Y2K cause to MD-80 problems (loved it).

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 28, 2000.

OK slim and in damn good shape, pin a rose on you. But you still stereotype people because you are a typical republican.

I don't know about children dying in the streets, but I do know Republicans, along with Bill Clinton, cut welfare to mothers and it made life much harder on the children. And by the way, at the same time they made the cut, the increased the funding for subsidies, tax breaks and other extravagant perks to corporations. They never seem to balk at corporate welfare, now do they.

Have another beer.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 28, 2000.

"But you still stereotype people because you are a typical republican."

I can't stop laughing!!!! :-)

Gilda, you are definitely a hoot!

-- (wolverine_in_nc@hotmail.com), March 28, 2000.

I enjoyed that too. I guess the world is divided into two types of people -- those who divide people into two types and those who don't.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 28, 2000.

Interesting read. There is truth to Delays words.

When Judeo-Christian morals are replaced with....whatever we have now, an element of restraint is removed from our culture. This element restrained us from all kinds of things that now are out of their cage. These morals were able to be attacked because one of the restraints they imposed was on sexual impulses. We were expected to govern them, and not them us. To a counter culture based on getting laid this was intolerable.

Now we see that not all restraint was bad. But rather than accept blame for a mistake the extreme left chooses to blame guns. Guns have been with us since this Republics inception. Guns with the capabilities that we have today have been around since the '40s. Funny how they became the a problem just as the counter culture gained significant influence in America.

Be an athiest if you choose. But don't disregard the concept of individual responsibility.

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.2all), March 29, 2000.

Watch six:

I am totally baffled by the position that moral restraints can only be found in Judeo-Christian tradition. I am neither, and I know the difference between right and wrong. Do I always choose "right" behavior? Heck no. But I do not have a distorted version of ethics because I do not follow judeo-christian tradition.

The choices we make in life are simple-for me, I simply ask myself if a particular choice will harm myself or others in any physical, emotional, or spiritual sense. I also ask myself about motives. Having a sense of the beauty and wonder in all human beings allows me to make good choices in enough cases that I am happy, and there are not too many people out there who have a resentment toward me.

No body of law will change human behavior-What will change human behavior is to teach our children about the integrity and equality of all people, about the rights of all people to live peacefully.

Fire and brimstone, harkening us back to a time where there were solid judeo-christian value systems, is nonsense. I have said this before, and I will say it again-Back in the "good ol' days" women did not have the right to vote, african americans did not have the right to vote, american workers were dying in meat packing factories and were being routinely abused by greedy corporate owners-It took suffrage movements, labor movements, etc. to start returning to people their basic rights.

"judeo-Christian" values, as applied by our forbears, did not lead to enlightenment. Open-mindedness and a willingness to try and understand all people, leads to enlightenment.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 29, 2000.

eyes:

I found this phrase somewhat ironic:

"Be an athiest if you choose. But don't disregard the concept of individual responsibility."

The athiests & born again agnostics that I've known have been extremely keen on the concept of individual responsibility.

-- flora (***@__._), March 29, 2000.

Futureshock

As I said, "Be an athiest if you choose. But don't disregard the concept of individual responsibility. "

I would put the decade in which J/C values were replaced as seventies/early eighties. Yet women got the vote before then, the slaves were freed before then, the 40 hour work week came about before then. Corporate greed....well, that's still here. Didn't vanish with the trancendence of J/C values. Trying to blame all ills prior to 1970 on J/C values is nonsense. We made alot of progress as a nation in the first 194 years of our history. In fact, our nations birth was a major advancement for freedom for the common man (and eventually woman). And from there we advanced further faster than anywhere else in the world. Of course, lately we have back tracked considerably. And this has mostly happened under the enlightened rule of our sixties generation president.

But, your not him and never claimed to be. And it is true that there can be good atheist and that there are bad Jews, Christians and Muslims.

I still have to stand by my point that when we tossed out the restraints of J/C values we got the bad with what ever "good" came with that development.

Perhaps we should all agree to watch out for the Constitutionally garunteed rights of all citizens, whether we agree with them or not.

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.2all), March 29, 2000.

"I am totally baffled by the position that moral restraints can only be found in Judeo-Christian tradition. I am neither, and I know the difference between right and wrong. Do I always choose "right" behavior? Heck no. But I do not have a distorted version of ethics because I do not follow judeo-christian tradition"---Futureshock

Your ability to recognize right and wrong is determined by a comination of your parents and by society constraints. Our society in America was originally formed on Judea-Christian values. And its' true that some of those values have changed and evolved over time. For example Woman are now revered and respected as more than chattel and have the same rights as all persons.

If you were in a different society and culture, say Middle East Muslim woman would be treated differently. Our culture might consider their treatment wrong but they consider it "normal".

It is also true that we may have many of the same values as Muslims or Far Eastern religions but many different as well. You beliefs whether you like it or not are from living in a society that was formed with Judeo-Christian values.

I think it would be wise if we step back and evaluate how the values of our society have changed over the last 40 years and determine if these changes have been detrimental to society as a whole and to individualls. Here is a question for example: How does the change in movie and television standards pre 1960 compare with todays standards? How did it evolve? How has it shaped and affected our attitudes towards violence, sex and our institutions?

Maybe our J/C values have been mixed and watered down with hedonism.

I don't have the answers but I do have more beer.

-- Outta beer (East of the smoke stack@usa.here), March 29, 2000.

Flora

The atheists I have known are mostly the "Ditch religion so I can get Laid" types. They spend their time crusing the internet for porn rather than appreciating their wives. (Who was it who compared men chasing women they didn't intend to marry to dogs chasing cars they didn't intend to drive?) The few that I know who thought about religion or God, and rejected the concept, are much more prone to be responsible than the others. I guess that the atheisits I know are people who have become decadent and reject all barriars to satisfying whims, not just religious restraints. And that gives insight all by itself. I'll type at you later, I have some musing to do.

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.2all), March 29, 2000.

Beer, sure glad you and Flint got such a kick out of my use of the term "typical republican." Now let me explain what I thought two such astute fellows as yourselves might have figured out. The typical Republican, talks in stereotypical phrases, "semi-socialist govt., liberal playbook, modern liberalism, liberal=emotion, filthy spin by Clinton, Gore and Gephardt." Recognize your stereotypes, beer?

But the atypical Republican sees his opponents as presenting a different point of view. Flint is good at always arguing the other point of view, even though he is a pain sometimes.

From my point of view, the l950's TV shows were all fun and Happy Days. Leave it to Beaver, Happy Days, Father Knows Best, etc., were not your typical American family. And all the advantages to women. Hell, one had to threaten a suit to get a salary on par with a male co-worker.

And J/C values of our forebearers were very judgemental, critical, and followed the Biblical words "women keep silent." It took a woman marching with a trail of children to Roosevelts home in New York to end child labor in factories, as the all male Congress always voted against any laws to protect children. Women fought for everything they got.

As one Aussie said about the newcomers to America and Australia, "Thank God they got they Pilgrims and we got the criminals."

And concerning gun control, here's a new stereotype for you. I'm a liberal and I think gun control is idiotic.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 29, 2000.

"And concerning gun control, here's a new stereotype for you. I'm a liberal and I think gun control is idiotic."--Gilda

Ah, common ground. Good.

As for stereotypes, the dems do it very well too and they have the press to help them.

I'm not sure what you mean by atypical Repbulican? Unless you mean one who agrees with your point of view. I, myself, like to listen to other points of view. I wouldn't be here if I didnt'. I'd probably be holed up in some shack with my guns, oppressing women and minorities, bombing abortion clinics, polluting the atmosphere, starving welfare children, keepin the poor in there place and maybe even forcing folks on there knees to pray to the good Lord above.

And that would just be my day job.

LOL!!

Sam Adams Boston Ale is the days specialty.

-- Outta beer (East of the smoke stack@usa.here), March 29, 2000.

Outta;

I'd probably be holed up in some shack with my guns, oppressing women and minorities, bombing abortion clinics, polluting the atmosphere, starving welfare children, keepin the poor in there place and maybe even forcing folks on there knees to pray to the good Lord above.

I don't think that Dubya will be very enthusiastic about your definition of a Republican :o). Just a guess on my part.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 29, 2000.

"I'd probably be holed up in some shack with my guns, oppressing women and minorities, bombing abortion clinics, polluting the atmosphere, starving welfare children, keepin the poor in there place and maybe even forcing folks on there knees to pray to the good Lord above.

I don't think that Dubya will be very enthusiastic about your definition of a Republican :o). Just a guess on my part."--Z

No I'm sure he isn't enthusiastic, but conservatives are portrayed with disdain by the press and while these examples may slightly exaggerate the left wings opinions, I don't think these stereotypes are too far off the mark.

-- Outta beer (East of the smoke stack@usa.here), March 29, 2000.

Sometimes I read articles in the mainstream press and wonder how the author can possibly believe he/she is being impartial. If you're going to write an editorial then call it an editorial. Labeling conservatives with the above stereotypes just causes smoke to pour out my ears.

-- Outta beer (East of the smoke stack@usa.here), March 29, 2000.

Watch six:

Thanks for your response. Just for the record, I am not an atheist, and you may be at least partially correct in your assessment of how certain values of mine were formed-My mother was a catholic. HOWEVER, my father was and is still a rascist, and I am not. I had to make a decision early on to ignore him.

What I find extremely interesting is your assessment that the diminishing of J/C values started in the late 70's/early 80's.

Do you care to elaborate? I am very interested in what you have to say as you have made intelligent contributions to both this and the old forum.

I will agree to disagree. Peace, brother.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 29, 2000.

eyes:

My experience has been with a completely different collection of individuals over the years. One in particular was one of the most astute biblical scholars I've ever known, and though he claimed to be the 'born again agnostic' he continued searching and questioning until his dying day.

I suspect that one can find saints and scoundrels in this category as well, eh.

Thanks for the reply, maybe I can catch up with you in the next couple of days.

-- flora (***@__._), March 30, 2000.

FS

You said: "What I find extremely interesting is your assessment that the diminishing of J/C values started in the late 70's/early 80's. "

This is when I observed people around me no longer speaking about God or going to church or temple. This is when people stopped speaking about being a good Christian or Jew. During this time period people referencing thier religion faded from public veiw. This was in the North East in urban/suburban areas. Now, this could have started before that. I don't think so because it struck me as abnormal that that behavior was gone. I noticed it's absence.

Flora

After having mused extensivly I put forth this model of society that could explain some things.

Decadence was defined as turning excessive in the search for pleasuring or entertaining ones self. A decadent society was a society that existed for pleasure or entertainment. (This was before decadence was a dessert at national restaurant chains involving lots of chocolate.) Words like Debauchery and Depravity spring to mind. If a society becomes decadent then it is by definition doing all it can to entertain and amuse itself. In order to reach this lofty goal it will start to shed barriers to entertainment. Barriers like religion, which requires self control in some areas. And barriers like self-discipline, such as FutureShock practices. What else might get in the way of a prime directive to have a good time? Well, responsibility would. Civic duty would as well. In order to make sound choices as a voter you would have to be educated. You would have to know history and some economics and applied logic. But that takes work. Hey eyes. How about a point to all this obvious stuff! you are likely saying. If our society has gone decadent, then all disciplines will start to be discarded at the same time. The parent will plop his/her child in front of the TV instead of raising it, and will not take an interest in the childs schoolwork. The citizen will stare at the TV and accept anything that scrolls by without applying his own mind to the issues. Its much easier that way. (Otherwise you might have to go out on the web and have your assumptions challenged by logical juggernauts like Flint.. Refutation is such hard work.) A decadent people will float through life taking the path of least resistance until the next Fun Time arrives and they pay attention again. Any discipline will prevent decadence. A devoutly followed religion. A strong sense of civic duty. Strict personal standards. And conversely, decadence will cause the rejection of any discipline. So when decadence begins to spread a broad range of disciplines are lost at the same time. But some disciplines are much more visible, like my religion. It is spread throughout society and is (was actually) easily viewed. So it is easy to concluded that the rejection of religion CASUED decadence and all the bad things that attend it. What is much harder to see is that there are far fewer fellows like FuturerShock as well. Because he practices a personal code of conduct which is by definition confined to an individual. Many may have the same code, but there is no common handle for it like Judaism or Islam.

And what causes decadence? Perhaps it is the logical conclusion of generation after generation of parents wanting their children to Have it better than they did. Perhaps a society forgets what it took to get all the neat stuff they have. Not having to sacrifice, they forget the price and take for granted.

Ok. Ive bored you all enough.

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.2all), March 30, 2000.

Eyes,

That wasn't boring, that was quite eloquent. I think maybe you've hit a deep root here. Are we going to go the way of ancient Rome? Over run by barbarians while they concentrated obliviously on our own hedonism. That may have taken many generations but today's world is living in a much quicker pace. Rome could fall now in a generation.

To paraphrase POGO:

We have met the barbarians; and they are us.

-- Outta beer (East of the smoke stack@usa.here), March 30, 2000.

eyes:

First the disclaimer, I've been sailing the Pacific all day for work, so please grant me a little grace.

I'm very interested in your topic,however.

I don't believe you can lay the fall of modern western {US} civilization at the feet of atheists { I know this is radically simplifying your viewpoint- sorry!}

I'm also a mommy - by the 3rd grade the kids here were 50/50 in broken homes. I am not casting stones, my daddy was deceased by that time for me.

I think what caused me to post a response to your words was the fact that the few folks that I've known who have have claimed atheist status have come to that through extreme self examination and sacrifice-- undoubtably you've seen films from these screenwriters, read books by these authors ...

eyes,

I don't remember what part of the country you hail from, that could play a defining roll, I suppose. I hope you're open to pursuing it a bit further. I am used to working with folks in the 3-D, not so good in print, please bear with me.

eyes, I am a naturalist - truly I see things from a biological standpoint - many times it makes sense & many times that aint good!

-- flora (***@__._), March 30, 2000.

Watch six:

Wow. Very interesting post. I may still not agree with you, but I have to appreciate someone who is passionate about how they feel and has put thought into their conclusions.

From the time frame you've given, it would appear that you are about 15 years older than me(I am 38), so I am not able to concur with the change that you feel happened. I CAN say that I was in college during this time frame, and there was not much talk of God. I was partying my ass off, and that was to eventually lead to a decade of alcohol and drug abuse. I lived in decadence(as you have defined it) and nearly payed for it with my life.

Out of that pain, however, I found myself, and I found discipline, self discipline, as you so eloquently called it. It took a great deal of humiliation to find humility. It is out of humility that discipline becomes possible.

I have been sober a number of years now, and it is not due to me alone-there is a God and he/she/it has been very good to me. I found organized religion to be too restrictive, and as a pursuer of liberty, I am able to define myself and God every day by not adhering to a rigid set of principles. I do have tolerance for those who are better served by rigidity and ritual-We all have our specific needs.

As to wether or not we as a society are more decadent today than years gone by, it is hard to say. It sure feels that way a lot of days. People are selfish when they drive, on line at the supermarket, etc.. The wildcard here is that we are also more connected with our society than we have ever been before, and that, I feel, contributes to the use of superlatives-the good and the bad are magnified bby how fast news travels.

You bring up interesting points, and only time will tell if we are the new romans, or no worse than previous generations.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 30, 2000.

Flora

I certainly can't blame you for having to sail around the Pacific for work. Just watch for the green clouds of envy that may blow from my direction.

I seem to have trouble expressing myself here. When you simplified my point you shouldn't have gotten me saying I "lay the fall of modern western {US} civilization at the feet of atheists ". It should have come out more like "Decadence presses all forms of discipline out of society simultaneously" or "the parrallel loss of all behavioral restraints across society magnifies the loss of each to it's practitioners". Or maybe it sounds more like "I like yodels". Who can say. But I'm not going to blame athiests for the fall of our society. I did think I touched upon why it looks that way to some people of faith.

FS

So you had to learn the hard way, eh? Look at this it this way. You KNOW why hedonism is bad for you first hand. Devout J/C and Muslims never had to go through what you did but, they have to wonder "is someone yanking my chain with this temporance stuff"? The uncertainty must be killing 'em. Oh well. Guess that's why their called "People of Faith".

Outta

Thank you. Hope I can increase understanding all around.

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.2all), March 31, 2000.

eyes,

Thanks for being mindful on the buffalo thread.

I expressed myself poorly above. We have similar concerns about state of human affairs today.

A few weeks ago I attended a funeral. The deceased was of mixed religious parentage, but raised as a Jew. His chidren were raised as Jews, as they grew older they left the relgion behind - except for one who became Hassidic.

After the death of his first wife, the man married a catholic woman {who also has Mormon blood, yet holds them in a dim light}. He requested that the funeral be conducted sans religious ceremony. Needless to say, instead we had holy water flying, rending of garments, and lyrics from Jerry Garcia. The whole thing kinda made me tense.

Now I'm going to warp back to my original idea for you that the athiests I've known have lived with as much intent, thoughtfulness, and consideration of their position as most people of true faith that I have encountered. {Awful, awful sentence -I know. I have a hard time expressing what I want to}.

A sleazeball is a sleazeball, whether his name is Swaggart or Salami. I don't think the kinda fellas you're referring to would be the type to get in a discussion about faith with me. And I wonder if push came to shove they'd really classify themselves as atheists. What kinda funeral might they have? Weird thought for the day!

Thanks for the food for thought! Where's Margaret Mead when we need her?!

-- flora (***@__._), March 31, 2000.

Flora

I hear you. Out of all of us, I bet God cherishes most those who treat others well. No matter what their beleifs. And certainly over those who wear the trappings of a faith but do not honor it in there hearts.

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.2all), March 31, 2000.

I just love irony in reading through some of these posts. Especially those of Gilda's:

"See there they go again, subtle, but still trying to tell us that religion and moral values should be part and parcel of political life, and that they, the great, shining, moral examples should determine those values. When politicians want something, they immediately invoke the name of God to lend an air of sacredness to their requests or ploys.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 28, 2000"

(Now who would 'they' be and why such sweeping generalizations?)

"Outta' Beer you and your big bloated beer belly are so clever potificating on morals and prayer and trotting out your favorite stereotype of liberals.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 28, 2000. "

(and you wouldn't have any fondness for trotting out any stereotypes now would you?)

"OK slim and in damn good shape, pin a rose on you. But you still stereotype people because you are a typical republican.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 28, 2000."

(Nor would you stoop to holding any *gasp!* stereotypes of your own, now would you?)

You are a true visionary. I applaud you.

-- O henry (doublestand@rd.irony), March 31, 2000.