From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:27:28 GMT

Richard Pitts writes

>>Well, I'm sorry you had a rough childhood, but that's irrelevant to
>>the matter at hand. If you prefer a two parent family and wish to

>It may be irrelevant, but there was the implication of lack of understanding
>on my part in the first post and I provide the counter point.

Lack of understanding on your part, yes, but not of your own life's
experience, which, as I said (and you admit) is irrelevant. The point
you countered was never even made. 

>>have one, then fine, have one. But that's not enough, is it? You
>>intend to foist your preference on everyone else, too, as you so

>I think not - I am not presenting something fake or on the sly.  You
>presume that I am forcing my preference and not leading by example,

Right on cue. I figured you'd come back with that one, and it's a
lie. "Live and let live" is one of the basic tenets, if not the
principal tenet, of a free society. That you dismiss this fundamental
requirement for harmonious human coexistence suggests strongly that
you are opposed to the concept of free society. To where will you
lead by example? Away from this more-or-less free society to a New
Fascism? Who's going to follow you? Those who already agree with you,
of course, and perhaps a few others. Nonconformists will somehow have
to be forced, or you will have to learn to share your world with
them, i.e. "let live" (I'm sure you have no problem with the "live"
part). You have already expressed your unwillingness to do the
latter. Guess what that means. 

>>Now, you can either somehow force
>>the single parent to marry, or impose sanctions against single parent
>>families, or you can compassionately accept their condition and find
>>it in your heart to provide assistance _if_ _asked_. Which path do
>>you think Jesus would have taken? 

>My friend, either you use Jesus as a ploy for your point or you have
>something against my view and Jesus will make the correct position
>know.

If reminding misguided, control-obsessed christians of Jesus's
demeanor and teaching is a ploy, then so be it. Now, how about
answering the question? Which path do you think Jesus would have
taken?  

>Just for your information, I extend compassion - not only to 
>those in my own family, but those outside of my family - Christian or not.

I see no compassion at all in your attitudes as presented. I see only
a self-interested drive to mold the lives of others to suit your
liking. 

>Jesus said be a servant leader - NOT LORDING IT OVER THEM LIKE THE GENTILES,
>but that doesn't mean you don't say anything nor advocate the better way.

That you have decided for everyone what "the" better way is tells me
that you would, in fact, lord it over them given the power to do so.
A servant leader is one who unassumingly leads without leading.
People quite naturally follow him, without word or beckoning on his
part, simply because they like what they see. Obviously, there are
many, many who do not like what they see in the so-called New Right
and its Family Values(r). I know servant leaders. Some servant
leaders are friends of mine. You're no servant leader. 

>>Who gets to decide what's 'better'? You have two choices:
>>force everyone to embrace your values, or learn to accept and even
>>love the diversity, eccentricity and scariness that is human
>>nature. What's it gonna be? 

>You decide.  I think you have some preconceived idea about my 
>desires and abilities.  

I've already made _my_ decision. You want me to decide for you too?
Just answer the question: What's it gonna be? Give me some reason to
abandon my preconceived idea, if you can. 

>>>I guess you see no problems in society?????
>>Society has no mind with which to have problems. Indiviual people

>Come on - society is made of the people.

'Society' is an abstraction, regardless of its components.
Abstractions do not have problems. But that's beside the point. Read
the next few lines again. See if you can find the point contained
therein. Pay special attention to the last sentence: 

>>[...] and it's for individual people and families (of all
>>kinds) to deal with their own problems as they see fit. You're not
>>smart enough or wise enough to do this for them.

See it? Good. Now address it, please.

>>And if you try to do
>>so, you can damn well expect to get your mouth bloodied sooner or
>>later. It happens time and time again, but you guys just never learn. 

>Thanks for the warning.

Oh, it's not a warning so much as a reminder. Didn't you study history in
school? Don't you read the papers? 

>Force doesn't win over justice - it may prevail temporarily, but it
>doesn't win. 

Fascinating. The words come out your mouth, but they don't seem to
enter your ears. 

>>Just what are you putting up? I'll tell you: an
>>arbitrary, sectarian standard to be used to browbeat and harass those
>>who do not prefer your precious model, that's what. 

>Every thing is good but practically everything can be used for evil.
>I don't advocate returning evil for good.  However, that still doesn't
>mean we should promote a better way (ie, don't through the baby out
>with the bath water.)

Once again, just how do you think you're going to 'promote' this
'better' way? By example? What will you do when you find that many
people are going to turn their noses up at your example? 

>>show's message. I've said nothing against your values themselves
>>(which I'll happily let _you_ keep), nor have I the slightest
>>intention of abridging your right to free speech. Can you extend
>>these courtesies to others?   

>My friend you have the right and you so speak.  If you want to
>point out my restriction on your right to free speech, the do so -

I've no doubt you guys'd censor any number of publications and
broadcasts given half a chance. Some are already doing or attempting
just that. And how about tolerating others' values? That would mean
having to live and let live, and we can't have that. It's bad for
'society' (i.e. the New Fascisti). 

>The emphasis was  given to the State not being able to influence the
>Church, however, the  Church could and should influence the State. 

Yes, the catholic church, the mormon church, the various protestant
churches, the jewish 'church', the satanic church, the buddhist
church, the atheist church...everybody here gets to vote. Nobody gets
preferential treatment. That's the general idea.

>>Again, it's up to each family to improve itself, according to it's
>>own wishes and conception of 'improve'. You're not competent to do

>Again, one has to have a goal to know one is improving.

The point is that it's the up to the individual, not you or anyone
else, to set personal goals and priorities.  

>>that for them. When individuals and families take care of themselves
>>(with help, if requested), society will take care of itself. 

>SO I am to help people improve themselves in ways I believe are not
>good???  

No, you are to help people in ways that you and THEY believe are
good, or keep your nose out of their business. 

>>>live and let live is a individualist attitude

>>An attitude _you_ benefit from in this country as much as anyone
>>else, lest you forget. 

>In some areas I would agree.
>Do I benefit from the live and let live attitude in moral areas?

huh? Given that 'live and let live' is itself a moral attitude, I
should think the answer to your question is quite obvious. The point
is, you're benefitting right now from a principle you would deny
others. 

>I guess
>I don't have any way of helping people by setting up a plan and
>putting it on paper, do I?

Depends on whether it's a good plan, doesn't it? 'Good' intentions
are dangerous when there's neither compassion nor wisdom behind them. 

>Oh, well maybe you forgot about the
>great words recorded on paper where Jesus taught about how to live, 

He teaches _you_ how to live, IF _you_ would follow his path. Weren't
you just telling me of his admonition against lording it over others? 

>but too maybe you forgot about the paper things we call our Constitution 
>and Bill of Rights.

What are you talking about?

>You don't like the word society do you - does

I have no problem with the word itself, and use it all the time.
_Your_ 'society', however, is a bogus beneficiary invented to receive
'improvements' to be administered by a group of pigs who would
remodel society to suit their own liking, jamming many formerly free
human beings into cages.

>it control you too much - is there some right you don't want to give
>up for society?

There are any number of rights I won't give up for your (and Mr.
Potatoe Head's) twisted vision of society. 

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho