From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:21:50 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <1992Sep29.20302@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org> jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes:

>Now, which of you bleeding heart liberals is going to step up and defend the
>right of a rapist or sadistic murderer to watch porno or graphic violence?

That is a very good question. This particular bleeding heart liberal is
a registered Republican and generally votes that way (mentioned just so
that you can appreciate just how "liberal" I am). You really need to
watch it when you throw labels around.

History tells us that a not insignificant number of wars were started
for religious reasons. The perpetrators of some heinous crimes have
declared that "God told me to do it". Some have brutally murdered
wives, sons, daughters, etc., because of some obsession with the idea
that the victim was a "sinner" and had to be "saved" (killed).

Some organized religions will toss out members because of some minute
failure to observe some ritual or another, causing great emotional harm
to those who are otherwise devout and faithful. From where I stand, God
and religion have caused more death, destruction, and suffering than
any other single influence in the history of mankind.

Now you tell me, who is going to defend your right to read the Bible (a
subversive publication if there ever was one) and worship as you see
fit? Why are your freedoms and rights more important than mine? Our
founding fathers (some of whom were not deeply religious men regardless
of what you learned in Sunday School) had had quite enough of the
church dictating secular policy and so stated in their writings.

You pronouce that our choices as consumers should be restricted. Why?
Because you have some belief about how your children should be raised.
You do not want to be inconvenienced nor have to pay to further those
beliefs. You want society to conform to your personal beliefs so
that you, God's mouthpiece here on Earth, will not have to lift a
finger to accomplish your child-rearing agenda.

Since this attitude is probably offensive to even a deep-dyed Christer,
you manufacture (mostly out of whole cloth; some from religious dogma
and propaganda) hogwash justifications for the embodiment of your
agenda into secular law that even we who have no use for your personal
interpretations must obey on threat of governmental penalty.

When you advocate the removal of freedom from any group or individual,
you had better have some very sound arguments. You have NO arguments, or
at least you have presented none other than your adamant tone. If you
do not believe me concerning religion's influence on history, I suggest
you crack a few history books. Yet, have you ever heard me advocate
removal of your right to practice your religion?

Religion is a private and personal thing. I suggest you keep yours that
way. Or share it with those who are interested. But do not attempt to
beat me over the head with it using our elected government as a club.
Or else, you just may find that I may become a little less tolerant in
the future. How would you like some of us to suggest banning religion
altogether, rather than just opposing its incorporation into
government?
-- 
 John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
 john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407