From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:54:35 GMT

Richard Pitts writes

>Are we in your so called "free society" in America - is that what
>we are????????????
>Why do we have so many laws regulating the so called RIGHT you have 
>to "live and let live" - we have to regulate what people want to do.

Do you know what's meant by 'free society'? Do you understand the
difference between that and anarchy? In principle, we have laws that
keep other people from pissing on our trousers. Each of us, however,
may wet his own pants to his heart's content. That I may attend zen
meditation on Sunday mornings without being handcuffed (not yet,
anyway) by a Bible-brandishing goon squad makes this a relatively
free society as far as I'm concerned. And "live and let live" is not
a right. It is an attitude one holds regardless of the government's
view on the matter. Like belief in God. 
 
>|requirement for harmonious human coexistence suggests strongly that
>|you are opposed to the concept of free society. To where will you

>No you are for you don't want to conform - we have to conform to some 
>extent.

And to what extent must I conform so that we may have a free society?
I drive on the right-hand side of the road. I don't play drums at
2AM. I pay my taxes and make sure my cats get their rabies shots.
Should I also have to, say, profess belief in God in order to keep my
job? Would that be your idea of a free society? Admit it, Pitts. You
guys don't want a free society. I hear it on the news and in the
streets every day. You don't want all these queers, heathen,
fornicators, rappers, single moms and other sinners breathing the
same air you do, corrupting your children. Oh, and mind your
punctuation, will you? You're becoming increasingly difficult to
read.   

>|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. 

>Duh, you must be more brillent than I

Well, I can spell 'brilliant'.

>- please tell me.

It means that you will have to compel nonconformists to toe the line,
since you're unwilling to respect their choices or allow them their
turf. It means that your purported wish to merely lead "by example",
and not by force, is a turgid, throbbing lie. Clear? 

|>>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? 

>The answer would be "GO AND SIN NO MORE"
>Again, Jesus often told people to "go and sin no more" after he healed
>them [..]

AFTER he healed them! What will YOU do to heal them, Pitts? An
admonition from _you_ to "go and sin no more" will get you a warm,
hearty "Fuck off, clown." What are you going to do to ease their
suffering? Lecture them on Family Values? Mother Theresa, move over.
Richard Pitts is here. 

>|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. 

>Maybe, I know someone (God) that has told give a better plan than what
>the general population thinks is the right way to go.  I am not 
>advocating my way - I didn't invent it.

Does this mean that you do, in fact, intend to mold others' lives to
suit your liking? This would, after all, be quite consistent with and
consequential to your aversion to "live and let live". 

>Could you cite, specifically, where I have pushed some kind of legal 
>enforcement of any of these ideas?

Well, let's see if we can collect some data right now. How do you
feel about this Oregon Citizens Alliance? Will you lord it over women
by taking control of their bodies? Will you lord it over
non-christian children and their families by imposing prayer in
public schools? How do you feel about our illustrious president's
characterization of atheists as unpatriotic, second-class citizens? 

>|>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.

>Ok, so leading by example completely excludes informing someone or
>everyone of the goals I have.

No, but if your example is worth anything, you needn't say a word. Be
honest. These aren't just goals _you_ have. These are goals you want
_everyone_ to have. THE better way, remember? Your arrogance
precludes your being a servant leader or a servant anything else. 

>|A servant leader is one who unassumingly leads without leading.

>Can you name someone who fits this? 

Yes, several people I have known over the course of my life. Nobody
you know. 

>|People quite naturally follow him, without word or beckoning on his
>|part, simply because they like what they see. Obviously, there are

>Again, he is obviously limited to non-verbal communication, I guess.

Why would you guess this? Do you think verbal communication is
limited to obnoxious moralizing? 

>Why can't he also give his ideas.

He can, but rarely does because he humbly recognizes the limits of
his perception and understanding; because he knows that he knows
nothing; because his walk with God (or whatever) can only be his own
and that each needs to be free to seek his own connection with I AM.
He has no intention of being a leader. His peaceable demeanor and
quiet humility are precisely what attract people to him and cause
them to want to follow him - without making them feel that they're
being led at all. Such a person would just as soon vomit as preach. 

>|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. 

>Oh.  How do you know - 

Easy! By your aversion to "live and let live". By your arrogant
claims to absolute knowledge of correct human existence. I see
nothing of servile humility in you at all. 

>|>>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? 

[ irrelevant prattle ]

>|Just answer the question: What's it gonna be? Give me some reason to
>|abandon my preconceived idea, if you can. 

>BECAUSE IT IS PRECONCEIVED

So SHOW me already, Pitts. With your every passing sentence, I have
more and more reason to believe my 'preconceived' perception of you
is correct. This is your chance to blow it away. Now, will you force
everyone to embrace your values, or will you learn to at least
tolerate human diversity; to live and let live? Stop squirming and
answer. 

>I claim no wisdom of my own, for this life.  I ask God for wisdom
>and I seek it in his written word, for He does give wisdom freely and

Do you believe that each and every one of your opinions is purely of
divine origin? Assuming you don't want to go on record as claiming
infallibility, how do you distinguish divine wisdom from
Pitts-stained wisdom? Is your method of discernment infallible? 

>Again, your preconceived idea or bad experience has blinded you to 
>God's plan.

That swings both ways. You can't disprove your own blindness anymore
than you can prove your God's existence. 

>|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? 

>Keep being an example, working as unto the Lord.

If only it were so, but your objection to "live and let live"
emphatically belies this. 

>We say we hold a tight line on values, you claim to be have more 
>freedom/light, but you actually far exceed us in the area of
>intolerance proportional to each of our camp's view/stated policy.
>Can't ideas be presented?   Or is that only if they agree with yours?

Don't ask ridiculous questions. Show me some figures on this alleged
intolerance ratio. Who's telling conservative christians they can't
or shouldn't run their lives and their families as they see fit?
Nobody's trying to censor you, unless 'censorship' means stopping you
from forcing your values on people who don't share them. You guys
even have your own radio and TV networks, fercrissake. Who is it
that's smashing records and having books pulled from library shelves?
Who's preaching the one, true way? The only thing we're intolerant of
is having our lives invaded and personal freedoms abridged by a
particularly powerful religious cult. 

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

>This is true

Then what's all this talk of setting goals for society (i.e. people
you don't know)? Have you just changed your tune? 

> - change comes from within,

The true understanding of which leads one to "live and let live",
which you don't believe in, hypocrite. 
 
>Give a specific in the moral area, in which I benefit [from "live
>and let live"] - again, I  guess I'm too slow or uninformed. 

Well, you said it. I don't know what 'moral area' is supposed to
mean, but when's the last time somebody forbade you to pray
(quietly), say, before a meal in a restaurant or other public place?  

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

>Name one.

The right to freely practice the religion of my choice, without
harassment or social or economic consequence. The right of women to
sovereign control of their own bodies and reproductive choices. The
right of homosexual people to be treated with the same dignity and
respect afforded heteros. 

--
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