Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
From: jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 13:41:44 GMT
Organization: Northern Bytes BBS - Sault Ste. Marie, MI U.S.A.

In article <43989@zygot.ati.com> dated 1 Oct 92 20:21:50 GMT,
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) wrote:

 > 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).

John, I am practically on my way out the door, so this will be short (well, it
was going to be when I started it), but I have to comment on this.  I agree
that some pretty awful things have been done in the name of religion.  Still
are, for that matter.

 > 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.

Wrong.  Please do not blame God.  Religion, yes; humans, yes; and of course
there is the devil who comes to "kill, steal and destroy".  God never intended
it to be that way.  Many of the excesses you see were caused by people who had
no idea what the Bible said, yet for some reason thought they were doing God's
work.

However, I'd like to know how this relates in any way, shape or form to what we
have been discussing?  NO ONE, least of all me, has suggested the death penalty
for those who put porno on TV.  On the other hand, some people are even tilting
at the idea that folks should have the ability to have ratings in real-time in
order to avoid viewing shows they might find objectionable, even IF the porno
remained on the air for those who want to view it!  Now who is imposing their
beliefs on whom?  Granted, I would like to see it off the air entirely because
I feel that it is contributing to the downfall of morality in our society, but
so far that has only been an opinion that I have offered, and in case you
haven't noticed, there has been PLENTY of opposing opinion.  Do you see my
opinions as so dangerous that you have to compare me to some dark age heathens
or something?

 > 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.

I think that you are slanting this just a bit (what they'd had enough of was
one particular sect - the Church of England - telling everyone that they must
join ONLY that church and worship God ONLY in their way) but this really isn't
the place to discuss the history of the Americas.

 > 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.

This is a new level of rhetoric and flaming.  When did I claim to be God's
mouthpiece here on earth?  And if I am God's mouthpiece, whose mouthpiece are
you, and whose agenda are you promoting?  That of the guy popularly portrayed
with horns and a pitchfork?  ;-)  (Note for the humor-impared:  That most
definitely was a bit of sarcasm, not intended to be taken literally!).  Give me
a break, John... I know you can be an opinionated person (and so can I, which
is probably why we're disagreeing here) but I've seen you in this and other
forums (especially comp.dcom.telecom) and you are always trying to come off as
an authoritative person, so you really shouldn't castigate others who appear to
you to be doing the same.

You know, if I were only concerned about my children, and if I could live like
a hermit and never have contact with the rest of society, then I suppose I
could throw out my TV and say to heck with the rest of the world (although that
would be a pretty self-serving attitude in and of itself).

 > Since this attitude is probably offensive to even a deep-dyed Christer,

How would YOU know?  Never mind...

 > 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.

WHY do you insist on acting as though MY PERSONAL BELIEFS are going to be
enacted into law?  This is what I mean about tilting when somebody expresses an
opinion! Get a clue, John... unless a WHOLE BUNCH MORE PEOPLE AGREE, my views
don't stand a CHANCE of being enacted into law.  I don't have the power nor the
ability to impose MY VIEWS on anyone.  Some of you people act as though you
were talking to Saddam Hussein on the other end of the keyboard.  Please
understand that if any such law DOES get enacted, it will be because a LOT of
people wanted it.  If my views are really "hogwash" as you claim, then the
chances of it happening are VERY slim.  On the other hand, if you are truly
worried that such a law might come into effect, then you are in effect
admitting that there are a large number of folks who might like to see such
laws enacted.

 > 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?

You're coming very close.  In effect, you (and others like you) are trying to
silence me from speaking up for what I believe in, in this case my making some
of the most outlandish leaps of logic and by trying to somehow connect my
opinions with events that happened hundreds of years ago.

 > 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.

Christianity is not supposed to be a private and personal thing, and that line
is straight from the communist/socialist agenda.  And, no one is trying to beat
you over the head, but if every liberal group in the world can express their
opinions and not be challenged for them, then I *INSIST* on having that same
right.  If the liberals can attempt to use the government to further THEIR ends
and ideals, then I *INSIST* on having that same right.  This is only basic
fairness.

 > 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?

Sir, you have as much as done that, and if your message is an indication of
what passes for "tolerence", then the plans for the concentration camps are
probably being drawn up already.  Please do not delude yourself into thinking
that you are "tolerant". A tolerant person would be able to accept the
expression of opposing ideas without responding in the way you have responded.
Perhaps you were just having a bad day, but honestly, I would not consider your
message as a model of one posted by a "tolerant" person.  To be fair, I have my
days as well (don't we all?).

As for banning religion, it's not only been suggested, it's been tried.  For
someone who purports to know his history, you should know that Christianity
only grows stronger when it's banned by official edict, and though many kings
and dictators have tried to put an end to it over the past couple of centuries,
it's survived to this day.  So your threat to become "less tolerant" is
meaningless... though the whole world become as intolerant of religion as the
worst Communist dictator you can name, Christianity WILL survive.  But isn't it
interesting that you would even suggest such a thing.  After all, we really
weren't arguing over religious dogma (a lot of NON-religious people are
concerned about the level of filth on TV these days) but somehow it appears
that just because *I* believe in the Bible and hold an opinion that you don't
agree with, that's a good reason to declare "open season" on religion?

Amazing.

Jack

Jack Decker                               | No, I don't own an Amiga; I just
Internet address: jack@myamiga.mixcom.com | get Internet mail via a gateway
Fidonet address:  1:154/8                 | system that runs on an Amiga.