From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Willie Fundie?
Date: 13 Jan 93 04:06:27 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <C0r8o3.2Dr@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
>cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
>
>>In article <C0p8uE.C8H@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
>
>>>I see that guv clinton said goodbye to his (Southern?) Baptist
>>>congregation yesterday.  Whenever liberals begin to fat-mouth
>>>conservatives, they often lump them all together as "Right-Wing
>>>Fundamentalists." Since Baptists are about as fundamental as it gets,
>>>does that mean that willie is one of the hated fundamentalists, or does
>>>it mean that he only pretends to be one whenever there's a photo-op
>>>involved?  If he is a "fundie," as I've seen them referred to here,
>>>then it seems to me that he'd feel compelled to support his church's
>>>positions.  If he belonged to a country club that excluded blacks or
>>>jews, there would be a terrible outcry, but he belongs to an
>>>organization that is strongly anti-abortion and against the practice of
>>>homosexuality, and nobody has said a word.  Why haven't we heard a peep
>>>from either of these groups regarding his support of an organization
>>>that actively opposes them?
>
>>Gee, it seems you have just uncovered two things about religion:
>>1) There are a lot of variations between what members of the same
>>faith purport to believe (i.e., some Baptists are fundamentalists, others
>>not) and
>>2) Religious people can in good conscience support abortion if they feel
>>abortion is not contrary to their religious doctrine.
>>Chris
>
>I'm not talking about "religion." Let's forget about the Baptists for a
>moment and quite correctly state that he belongs to an organization
>that is against against homosexual behavior and opposes abortion.  He
>supports that group financially (we presume), participates in their
>meetings, and has probably been a member all of his life.  Why would he
>support any group that is so contrary to his public position on those
>issues?  And as I asked earlier, why wouldn't the two groups that I've
>mentioned here be actively protesting his membership in that
>organization?  What's the difference whether we're talking about a
>church or a country club?

Clinton would belong to such an organization quite simply because the
essence of being a Baptist is not one's position on abortion or gay rights.
There are other, more central, issues involved which Clinton agrees with.
Secondly, just because you disagree with *some* of the official positions
of an organization to which you belong doesn't mean you disagree with
*all* of them.  For example, I am a Democrat but agree with the GOP's
stance on vouchers for private schools.  I just happen to agree with the
Democrats on other issues of importance...and those issues rank *higher*
on the scale of importance than school vouchers.  So it is with Clinton:
he disagrees (and rightly so) with the (purported) Baptist stance on 
abortion, but agrees with Baptists on other, more salient issues.  Why
do you think so many Roman Catholics stick with the Church dispite their
stances in favor of abortions or women priests?  It's the same principle:
you never agree 100% with any organization to which you belong, so you
have to prioritize issues, i.e. determine what's most important to you.

Chris
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton