From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Fighting fundies
Date: 23 Jan 93 23:20:53 GMT
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison


In article <14037@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark
Walsh) writes:

>From article <C18GJC.78J@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, by
>mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Real Life?!?!  HA!!):

>>These fundie groups that are trying to make our lives a
>>hell are "non-profit"!  Now, I may be wrong here, but is it
>>not required for a non-profit organization to abstain from
>>any political activity?

>Eh?  This would sure change the face of the planet!  I
>better cancel that check that I just mailed to Common Cause.
>Good thing I didn't send one to the ACLU!  :-)

Isn't there a distinction between nonprofit and tax-exempt
at play here?  Not all nonprofits are exempted from paying
taxes, are they?  I'm not sure about the law, but I think
the principle of separation of church and state means that
churches, which have tax-exampt status, are not free to
engage in political activities.

Actually, I'm against any tax exemptions.  It's all right
with me if the churches engage in political activity.  I
can; why shouldn't they?  I certainly want them to pay
taxes.

>>Another idea: Why not try to drain the fundies' pocketbooks
>>a little bit each day on our own?  A few months ago, someone
>>mentioned sending lead weights to them through business
>>reply mail?  What about sending lots of letters, without
>>return address, postage due?  How about calling their 1-800
>>numbers (Do they have any?) incessantly, thus a.driving up
>>their phone bills(maybe) and b.tying up their lines and
>>operators' time?

>This is called harrasment, and as such is illegal.

Well, it's called harassment, but you're right, it's
illegal.

>Remember the saying, "do unto others..." How would you feel
>if your favorite cause's 800 number was diluged by this kind
>of nonsense?  Do us all a favor and grow up.

You could make your point, which is perfectly valid, without
the gratuitous discount.

>Your .signature line says that hate is not a family value.

I have a similar point in mine.  It doesn't mean that I
exempt myself from being angry, or from taking actions to
counter the effects of those who do hate.

>I guess your desires to drive up the postal and phone bills
>of some retarded group stems from your deep love for them.

See remark above.

>>All these things are free.  I don't know if they would
>>work; maybe someone has tried some or all of this before.
>>But anyone who has any other ideas, let us know.  I think
>>the only way these hate groups are going to lose is if they
>>run out of money.  So why not help them run out of money?

Those things probably won't work very well.  But there are
probably other things that would help.

>Do you really think that these hate groups are such a great
>cause that they will steamroll over the top of you?  I think
>not.  These groups are largely composed of morons, and will
>never be a sizeable percentage of the population.

Below, you talk about the effectiveness of the National
Rifle Association, which you report as only 1% of the
population, but highly effective by virtue of their
organization.  Fundamentalists are between 10% and 25% of the
population.  Experience shows they are not badly organized.
They're morons with power, and I think you've sizably
underestimated the threat they represent to freedoms I'm
sure we both value.

>There is a much larger percentage of people, gay and
>straight alike, that believe in the concept of personal
>freedoms.

Larger, but divided, self-interested, and when you get right
down to it, most seem not to know very much about the
freedoms they enjoy.  How many people do you think would
correctly relate the substance of the Bill of Rights?  If it
turned out to be 5%, I would be *very* surprised.

>The best thing to do is become organized in order to educate
>the masses of the virtue of your cause, and not attempt to
>destroy the freedoms of those with differing beliefs.  How
>can you expect tolerance if you do not display it yourself?

This is such an important principle that it's funny how
often it gets beaten up.  The thing to be tackled is the
beliefs, not the freedoms of the believers.  And tolerance
for beliefs that are essentially harmless (and maybe helpful
to those believing in them) seems a good idea, too.  But one
is not expected to tolerate just any old thing; the issue
comes down to what things and how to deal with them, and
these decisions must be legal, reasonable, and morally
principled.

>Years ago, I despised the NRA.  How could a group that is
>less than one percent of the population get away with so
>much?  I realized that the key was organization and focus.

I too am no special friend of the NRA, not so much on the
handgun control issue, but on hunting and wildlife
management issues.  But they are very tightly run.

>I also learned that the NRA is not evil, they are just a
>group of people like you and me who happen to be
>particularly effective at protecting their interests.  There
>are some very valuable lessons here.

I dunno that I would altogether agree about the evil; that's
probably too strong an indictment, but I think the NRA is
not exactly the people's friend.

-- 
[Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin]
[Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson]
[Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888]
[---------> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <---------]
Newsgroups: soc.motss