Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:04:38 EDT
From:         "Fritz Block, LCF Summer President" <BD32@LAFAYACS.BITNET>
Subject:      Politics, etc.

> 	I am a bit confused on where all the "family values" smoke is blowing
> from.  Is it the fundamentalist right section of the GOP?  A mainstream
> coalition of americans who want to return to a simpler way of life?  Or is it
> the american media who have concocted another buzzword?  I really don't know.
> Anyone out there have any ideas?

It comes from the more conservative element of the GOP, not just the
fundamentalists, who aren't as powerful as the media would have us
believe.

> 	My main point is that this is a very large and diverse country.  This
> is also a democracy, one in which regards all citizens as "...created equal,
> and endowed by their creator with certain unallianable (sp?) rights..."  There
> is no way that every family can live and operate under the same set of values-
> there are just too many of them!  Racially, economically, spirtually,
> politically, and geographically this country is too diverse to encompass a
> regeimented set of values.

Agreed, but certain issues are addressed (or lamentedly, not adddressed)
by legislation, and choices have to be made as to what values are to be
embodied by that legislation.

> 	Will the candidate who is a proponent of "family values" get elected
> into office?  Probably so, because americans wish to be fed nostalgic pablum
> instead of dealing with the real ills of this country.

Judging how far he's behind and the forecasts on the economy, probably
not.  Clinton's feeding the Americans pablum too, so the same could be
said if he's elected (though I don't agree).  He promises everything for
everybody.  In the words of Paul Tsongas, whom I might've voted for, he's a
"Pander Bear."  His promises are dangerous in how unrealistic they are,
creating hopes that can't possibly be fulfilled without a massive
increase in the annual growth of the deficit (and/or crippling taxes).

> 	CHRISITIANS ARE AN IMPORTANT FACET OF THIS COUNTRY.  There is no
> denying that.  BUT THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY IMPORTANT FACET OF THIS COUNTRY.
> Domination is not going to score any points with the american people.

I don't think domination by Christians has been much of a problem in
government during the past half-century, and it doesn't look to be in
the future.  Surely there's nothing objectionable about Christians
promoting the legislation which they feel is the most effective to the
well-being of this country.

> 	It is time for a change, a change of leadership, a change of direction,
> and a change of vision.  I'm not talking about a nostalgic way of looking at
> the world and the nation as _both_ political parties tend to do, but an honest
> look at what this country is, and how it can be fixed.

I agree, but . . .
It's been "time for a change" since Eve and Adam bit the apple.
Seriously, during most of our country's history -- I think the same
could be said for others too -- there have been enough problems that
many people have thought that "it's time for a change."  Neither Bush
nor Clinton would give us the change we need.

I take it you're voting for Clinton, Tom?

*++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*
* Fritz Block    "Love is not a ballad on the top ten chart            *
* bd32@lafayacs   Love is not a virus from cupid's dart                *
* 215-250-8031    Love is not a promise that you tear apart            *
* Lafayette Col.  Love is a commitment heart to heart" -- Larry Norman *
*++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU