From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:58:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: kadsma.1992Aug21.195820.9170
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar

In article <1992Aug21.144742.23278@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.181232.23398@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug20.160827.13408@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>...  Many groups in America currently advocate force to impose
>>>their culture on others.  Some of them are "good liberals".
>>
>>Examples, please.
>
>- the multicultural requirements that have been inserted into the curricula
>of high schools and colleges, from the New York City school system
>to Stanford University.

I, too, dislike these.

>- meanwhile, schools likewise have sought to prevent, many times successfully,
>the formation of private Bible study groups,

Isn't this is 'separation of church and state' issue? And haven't there
been some changes recently in this area.

>- The existence of the NEA and NEH itself, which has been primarily 
>a promoter of "Good Liberal" projects, at taxpayer expense.
>

One of the largest recipients of NEA money in our community is the local
symphony orchestra. Is this a 'good liberal' project? I dare say that a large
percentage, perhaps a majority, of the regular attendees at concerts would
characterize themselves as conservative, perhaps moderate.

The conservative attempt to label the NEA as a promoter of 'liberal' projects
is bogus, and has credibility only because of a few sensational cases that
get a lot of publicity. Most of the money goes to people and groups who are
thoroughly mainstream.


>>What
>>are the 'good liberals' doing that compares to Jesse Helms' attempts
>>to police the National Endowment for the Arts?
>
>Criticizing Jess Helms for doing what the NEA has *always* done -
>decide to fund some art, while declining to fund other art -
>is hypocritical.

Wrong. The difference is that Helms wants to 'de-fund' certain works
and artists on *political* grounds, not artistic merit. Helms simply doesn't
like the subject matter of certain works, and wants them excluded for that
reason. He is neither interested in, nor qualified to, discuss the actual
artistic merit of these works.

>Personally, I think we would be better off *without* the NEA.

I think you would be dismayed at the number of worthwhile organizations in
your area that would simply have to fold without NEA support. If you think
you would be better off without an orchestra, or museum, in your area, I
suppose you're entitled to your opinion. I also have a word for that
attitude; philistinism. 'Who needs art, (or music, or theatre,) anyway?'

And BTW, don't tell me that the private sector would pick up the slack if
the NEA went away. The private sector in this area is already contributing
big-time, and we *still* need the NEA.

>
>---
>Pat

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40051 alt.politics.bush:1775 alt.politics.clinton:2040 alt.sex:26834