Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 12:33:06 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Michael's personal problems

 *** Resending note of 09/12/92 01:20

 >Says Robert:
 >  "Makes you wonder how anyone could give any credibility to the phrase
 >`separation of church and state'.

 >>  I think it is probably best to understand this appalling statement in
 >>the context of the interesting posting about the effects of television
 >>on the electorate.

 That's understandable, since it appears that's where the blame for your
 warped view of morals should probably be placed.

 >>   Far from representing "traditional values," Robert
 >>is an amoral monster, perfectly willing to content himself with half-assed

 Amoral?  Perhaps you should look this one up again.  You are the one that
 apparently has no sense of right and wrong.

 >>misinformation if it is oversimple enough to dull the pain of modernity.

 In your private *little* world, that matches the boundaries of your *little*
 mind, you can enjoy your modernity all you like.  In fact, your version of
 modernity reflects a system based upon nothing worthwhile, a self-indulgent
 godless system of self-worship.  This is fine if you have chosen to corrupt
 your mind with such trash, but don't inflict us with your personal problems.

 >>And he is willing to force-feed this hog slop to his poor innocent daughter,
 >>calling this her "education". Above all, he wants to control how much
 >>truth gets in the way of his ignorance, and he does this the same way
 >>that most head-bangers do, by denying history.
 >>  Like his hero (I don't doubt) Oliver North, he believes that accepting
 >>Christ as his personal saviour gives him the right to use the U.S.
 >>Constitution as his personal Toilet Paper. Or, in Robert's case, to
 >>completely ignore this priceless document.

 Actually, I was toying with a marketing idea along these lines.  I have
 wanted to market a "Supreme Roll", toilet paper where each sheet was a copy
 of the Bill of Rights.  We could then use the Constitution in the same
 fashion as the Supreme Court.

 In your case, ignoring the Constitution would have been the wisest choice.
 You certainly have no understanding of it!

 >>  The framers of the Constitution were not just prescient where conscience-
 >>free scum like this were concerned, they were observant. There have always
 >>been individuals who would rather have you suffer than inconvenience them-
 >>selves with reality. The framers saw these motherfuckers coming, knew what

 M..F..'s ?  Now why are you badmouthing your older brother?

 >>they were up to, and included the priceless wisdom in the Constitution
 >>  "Congress shall make no law recognizing an establishment of religion"
 >>This means that our system of law is OBLIGED to ignore religious expression

 This is bull, again reflecting your lack of knowledge concerning the document
 and its writers.

 >>in every form, rightly leaving it to PRIVATE CONSCIENCE. The principle
 >>couldn't be more clear: your religion is your business, you NEVER have the
 >>right to use the state to inflict it on anyone else..
 >>  But those on the list who know right from wrong already know this, and
 >>are well aware what the Roberts of the world are trying to pull. For twelve
 >>years we have had a government that  systematically makes a mockery of
 >>morality; hydrophobic jerks like Robert are merely a symptom. Let us hope

 I'll have you know, I like water!

 >>that November proves it's still not too late for a free society.

 There is no one running for office that will do anything to resolve our
 current lack of a leadership.  You're putting your faith in the wrong
 people.

 >>Michael Morse

 Respectfully,

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU