There are 20 messages totalling 735 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. Tolerance. (17) 2. OT - Book of Daniel (3) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 23:05:58 EST From: Evelyn Duncan <BrandyKitt@aol.com> Subject: Re: Tolerance. In a message dated 2/5/2006 6:43:12 PM Central Standard Time, mac.westie@verizon.net writes: << Animal Planet's Puppy Bowl today is a hilarious antidote to the other one, w/ Kitten Play halftime >> Are they going to show that again? I wish I had known it was on; I would have taped it. Who won? Evelyn Duncan brandykitt@aol.com Oh, crumbs! -- Penfold ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:16:52 -0700 From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com> Subject: Re: Tolerance. Leah wrote: >Extremist clerics, what a whacky bunch. "One man's religion is another man's belly laugh." Robert A. Heinlein And while we're discussing the Book Of Daniel and quoted RAH, I should include a couple more. "When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, 'This you may not read, this you may not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." - RAH "It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics." --- Robert A. Heinlein, Postscript to Revolt in 2100 Pat L. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/251 - Release Date: 2/4/2006 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 00:18:00 EST From: Dotiran@aol.com Subject: Re: Tolerance. In a message dated 2/5/2006 12:08:14 PM US Eastern Standard Time, Immortals_Incorporated@COX.NET writes: >>>>>But "serious Christians: *didn't* just avoid it ::::bangs head on keyboard::::: They actively and successfully campaigned to have it pulled off the schedule. Instead of allowing those who liked BoD to watch it Now, now, you are going to hurt your head banging around like that. You just don't get it. Protest is an American way of life. It is all about free speech and the power of a market economy. Whether it is gays or blacks or hispanics or christians or moslems or jews, if some group doesn't like something/some portrayal/some presumed injustice/some whatever, then it is their constitutional right to protest, picket, boycott, campaign, whatever. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But their right to do so is clear. What they canNOT do is bomb the clinic, burn the embassy, shoot the person who crosses the picket line, cut off the heads of those who offend. Those who do have crossed not only beyond fervor to fanaticism, but from protected speech to criminal/terrorist activity and should be prosecuted. The plain truth is that if BoD had been watchable, if the people who watched it had really liked it, it would still be on Christian protest or not. And you know it is true. Heavens, look at the abortion debate. The power, organization, unity and consistent YEARS of action against it in this country by Christians has been immense, making any lobbying against a silly tv show pale into insignificance, but it hasn't changed most minds or the law. The protest will continue, however. What I hear in this present argument on the list is simply the intolerance of those who want tolerance only for those who agree with them. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:19:28 -0000 From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk> Subject: OT - Book of Daniel My friend Shamenka wants me to pass on a message of thanks to Dotiran and her friends for getting this show cancelled. She says if it wasn't for that, causing such a fuss that it was heard over here in the UK, she'd probably never heard of the show, gotten curious, surfed over to NBC's website and downloaded the pilot out of curiosity, she'd never have found this "gem" of a show. A show that had her in stiches, her husband found hilarious, and a show she feels happy to let her 14 year old son watch. (she monitors his tv viewing carefully - I'd almost call him "sheltered" compared with other boys his age). A show that handles a lot of "hot button" issues with grace and humour and gives a very positive portrayal of Jesus - kind, patient, tolerant and forgiving, just like the Christ she remembers from Bible Class. She's sent a message of support to NBC, as has her husband, and intends to make sure as many people as possible download the bit-torrents and see the episodes of the show that are available. Jette ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:12:23 -0500 From: kageorge <kageorge1@verizon.net> Subject: Re: Tolerance. Dotiran@aol.com wrote: > >What I hear in this present argument on the list is simply the intolerance >of those who want tolerance only for those who agree with them. > > No, what you are hearing is the anger and bitterness directed towards Christians who "want tolerance only for those who agree with them." There was no tolerance, or humor, or perspective, or kindness or forgiveness or anything else demonstrated in the hate-filled vituperous outpouring from the so-called Christians who demanded that, since they didn't like seeing Jesus portrayed as (heaven forfend) tolerant and forgiving, then NO ONE should. And they succeeded. This wasn't some rational argument about the merits of the program. It was a hate-mongering, bigot-ridden diatribe of intolerance. So your argument is specious. MacGeorge ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 13:20:01 -0000 From: ElaineN <Elainen@inguz.co.uk> Subject: Re: Tolerance. >>I'm sure God (of choice) is perfect, it's the people who run their PR companies that often piss me off.<< It's the spin again..... Elaine ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:46:22 EST From: Bizarro7@aol.com Subject: Re: Tolerance. In a message dated 2/5/2006 6:10:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, red57metoo@YAHOO.COM writes: If there were no religion, there would be a lot less bloodshed, true. But there would be a lot less art and music, too. Actually, the reason why there's so much art with a religious theme over the past 2000 years is because the dominant religion was the chief patron of most artistic works, and generally frowned on or forbid most secular artwork. Frankly, I think it's a shame because there are only so many pictures of a man dying on a wooden cross you can look at and admire, over a finite number of centuries. Also, a very large amount of great artwork that was *non-Christian* was deliberately defaced or annihilated as heretical, over the past 2000 years. Many religions will not tolerate any reminders of the spiritual competition, no matter how beautiful, ancient or valuable the work. (Witness the Taliban blowing up those ancient Buddah statues). And those that clerics deem pagan but too beautiful to destroy? They make sure the worshipping public never sees them. The art treasures sitting in the vast storage cellars at The Vatican are supposed to be incredible, but you'll never get a look at them. Leah ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:48:02 EST From: Bizarro7@aol.com Subject: Re: Tolerance. In a message dated 2/5/2006 6:32:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, kamilaa@gmail.com writes: On 2/5/06, John Mosby - Laptop <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com> wrote: > I'm sure God (of choice) is perfect, it's the people who run their PR > companies that often piss me off. And with that you've made my sig file. <g> Bumper sticker seen around in the US: "I love God. It's his fan club that I can't stand." Leah ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:49:16 EST From: Dotiran@aol.com Subject: Re: OT - Book of Daniel In a message dated 2/6/2006 7:23:02 AM US Eastern Standard Time, jette@blueyonder.co.uk writes: >>>My friend Shamenka wants me to pass on a message of thanks to Dotiran and her friends for getting this show cancelled. Gee thanks Jette *vbeg*, but I had nothing to do with it. I never protested, never campaigned, just watched it and didn't care for it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 14:30:25 -0000 From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk> Subject: Re: OT - Book of Daniel > In a message dated 2/6/2006 7:23:02 AM US Eastern Standard Time, > jette@blueyonder.co.uk writes: > >>>>My friend Shamenka wants me to pass on a message of thanks to Dotiran >>>> and > her friends for getting this show cancelled. > > Gee thanks Jette *vbeg*, but I had nothing to do with it. I never > protested, > never campaigned, just watched it and didn't care for it. > > No? Maybe not - but you were fast enough to start *gloating* about how the show had been cancelled and align yourself with those who'd protested. Take the thanks, and pass them on to those who did campaign - I'm sure you know a few personally. Just make sure you pass on her *whole* message. Jette ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:40:42 -0500 From: Wendy <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net> Subject: Re: Tolerance. I said: >>But "serious Christians: *didn't* just avoid it >> ::::bangs head on keyboard::::: >>They actively and successfully campaigned to > have it pulled off the schedule. Instead of allowing those > who liked BoD to watch it Rottie says: > Now, now, you are going to hurt your head banging around like that. I kinda like the pain. > You just don't get it. Protest is an American way of life. It > is all about free speech and the power of a market economy. > Whether it is gays or blacks or hispanics or christians or > moslems or jews, if some group doesn't like something/some > portrayal/some presumed injustice/some whatever, then it is > their constitutional right to protest, picket, boycott, > campaign, whatever. Sometimes it works, sometimes it > doesn't. But their right to do so is clear. Oh...I didn't say that what was done was illegal. Of course "serious Christians" had a *right* to protest. What I question is 1) their use of that right and 2) the network's response to the exercise of that right. If one truly believes in free speech, then one doesn't campaign to have some other person's free speech limited. If I find "Laguna Beach" to be awful, I "protest" by not watching. I "boycott" the show. However, I don't lobby to have it taken off, because I understand that others do like it and they have a right to like it - just as I have a right to dislike it. By changing the channel, I am saved from watching something I find "offensive" but anyone else is free to watch. Why wasn't it enough that those who disliked BoD simply change the channel? Why was it necessary to campaign to "deprive" everyone? > The plain truth is that if BoD had been watchable, if the > people who watched it had really liked it, it would still be > on Christian protest or not. And you know it is true. That's pure BS and *you* know it. In this day and age of shrinking market share and skittish sponsors and realistic fear of government "interference", network's can't afford any controversy - especially any controversy that involves religion (and in this country that means Christianity). BoD wasn't allowed to be on the air long enough to build any kind of loyal following which might have fought to save it. It wasn't on long enough to come close to hitting it's stride. Think what Highlander looked like after 4 episodes and what it looked like after 2 years. If there had been a protest by some group who thought the idea of weekly beheadings was sinful and anti-Mom&apple pie, would it have lasted 6 years? No. Would there have been anyone to mount a "Save Highlander" campaign after seeing only "Bad Day in Building A" and "Freefall"?? No. We'll never know if BoD could have become great because a few very vocal opponents decided that *no one* should see it if *they* didn't like it. And the networks bowed to the pressure because that's how business is done now. > Heavens, look at the abortion debate. The power, > organization, unity and consistent YEARS of action against > it in this country by Christians has been immense, making > any lobbying against a silly tv show pale into > insignificance, but it hasn't changed most minds or the law. It hasn't changed the law? Obviously you haven't tried to get an abortion recently. Do you know how many doctors have stopped doing abortions out of fear for their lives and livelihoods? Do you know how many women now have to travel hundreds of miles to find a doctor willing to perform an abortion - that there are entire states without *one* place to get a legal abortion? Do you know how many states have imposed layers of regulation to make running an abortion clinic almost impossible? How many laws have been passed to require longer and longer waiting periods, more and more "counseling" aimed at terrorizing women, more and more notification rules that make it harder and harder to have an abortion "in private"? The abortion debate may be ongoing, but the *law* has indeed changed. Death by a thousand tiny cuts (or making abortion impossible by thousand tiny regulations) is still death. > What I hear in this present argument on the list is simply > the intolerance of those who want tolerance only for those > who agree with them. Case one: BoD stays on the air. I get to watch. You don't have to watch. We both have our freedom. Both sides are tolerant. Case two: BoD is forced off the air. I can't watch. You don't have to watch. *My* freedom has been sacrificed for yours. Your intolerance robs me of my freedom ...my *choice* in the matter. I would defend to the death your right to hate BoD. I would never force you to watch a show that you found morally repugnant. But don't *I* have a right to watch BoD if I want - so long as you *don't* have to watch? No one was going to force you or anyone else to watch BoD. But that wasn't enough, was it? You and yours had to make sure that it didn't exist for anybody. Your so-called "serious Christians" couldn't stand the thought of it being out there in the world for *others* to see. It's mere existence was abhorrent ... so it had to be stamped out. That's *not* tolerance. Freedom ... freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom in general ... means putting up with things (ideas, religions, customs, etc) that you absolutely hate in return for being allowed to have your own ideas, religion, customs etc tolerated. If the other person's idea, religion, custom is not actively harming you, you *have* to just let it go. Don't eat the "funny" food....don't read the "bad" books...don't listen to the weird music...don't bow down to the "foreign" idol...don't watch the late night porn...don't have an abortion...don't drink the alcohol...don't wear the headdress...don't smoke the magic mushrooms...whatever. But *don't* tell the other guy that *he* can't do it either. It seems to me that "serious Christians" are no more able to tolerate differing religious/moral views than fundamentalist Moslems...both aren't satisfied with living their lives according to their rules, they want everyone to live by those rules. Following one's faith should not require stamping out everything that is different from that faith. If eating lobster if forbidden to you by your holy book ... don't eat the lobster but don't demand that all lobster be taken off every menu everywhere. If your religion forbids looking at women not of your family, keep your eyes to yourself ..don't demand that all women everywhere wear a burka. If your religious sensibilities are offended by network TV, pop in a DVD of your choice..don't demand that all TV shows be screened for orthodoxy. If I can tolerate knowing that Pat Robinson and Jerry Falwell have TV shows on the air, "serious Christians" ought to have been able to tolerate knowing that BoD was on the air. Wendy(I managed to mention Highlander.)(Yeah, me.)(Debbie?) Immortals Inc. immortals_incorporated@cox.net "Weasels for Eternity" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:21:40 EST From: Billie Lee Williams <McCelt2003@aol.com> Subject: Re: Tolerance. In response to Wendy's post from an extreme lurker from way back: :::::::::::::stands and applauds::::::::::::: I am a Christian, yes; a choice that I do not force on anyone else, nor do I require that they share to be my friend or otherwise. However, I do believe in freedom of expression, speech, hate the idea of going back to "back alley abortions" with the way things are going in the current US Administration, etc., and so on, ad nauseum. The very backbone of true Christianity, IMHO, IS tolerance, acceptance of ALL, regardless of Belief System, or lack thereof, culture, practices...; that is what it is all about, from my POV. I did not see the Book of Daniel, so I cannot proffer an opinion, I am sorry to say. I do agree that Highlander would have been yanked after the first few episodes, not having had the chance to build a loyal fan base just yet! Look what happened to "Roar!" Fortunately for Heath Ledger, his (IMHO) talent was recognized and look where he is now :-) Well said, Wendy, and I shall go back to lurking now; and await whatever shall come from my couple of dimes worth. Forever Yours, Billie-Lee Billie-Lee Williams, RN, Ph.D. "Oh, Divine Master grant that I may never seek, not so much to be consoled as to console, not so much to be understood as to understand, to be loved as to love with all my heart. Amen." Saint Francis ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:35:07 -0500 From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net> Subject: Re: Tolerance. :::: applause for Wendy and Billie Lee :::: -- Sandy (since when did this country become one of minority rule?) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:43:50 -0500 From: Lisa Cameron-Norfleet <cgliser@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Tolerance. >-- Sandy (since when did this country become one of minority rule?) 2000. When we let Florida pick the president. Liser ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:48:13 -0500 From: kageorge <kageorge1@verizon.net> Subject: Re: Tolerance. Lisa Cameron-Norfleet wrote: >> -- Sandy (since when did this country become one of minority rule?) > > > > 2000. When we let Florida pick the president. > > Liser > Actually, it ended up being the Supreme Court who picked the president - an even smaller minority. MacG ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:52:31 -0500 From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net> Subject: Re: Tolerance. Me: >(since when did this country become one of minority rule?) Liser: >2000. When we let Florida pick the president. Oh yeah.. how could I forget. The day democracy died. -- Sandy "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis (1935) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:48:06 -1000 From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net> Subject: Re: Tolerance. Rottie cites the party line-- > You just don't get it. Protest is an American way of life. It is all about > free speech and the power of a market economy. How hypocritical of _you_ to tout freedom of speech. You & yours aren't protesting anything; you are simply demanding that those who don't precisely agree w/ your religious tenets should be _silenced_. That's NOT the American way of life. At least, it hasn't been. Your free speech reply to BoD would be to air TV shows depicting your own version of Jesus & all the rest, which your side already does--countless conservative Christian TV shows air in the US. And, despite the stomach-churningly obvious money-making aspect of many of these shows (& the WWF-level of verisimilitude) (& the comical wigs), no one terrorizes the networks & sponsors of those shows. And if anyone DID--you'd be screaming religious prosecution. > The plain truth is that if BoD had been watchable, if the people who > watched > it had really liked it, it would still be on Christian protest or not. Again, the party line you spout is absurd. Your pals killed the show before it even aired--3 weeks in a Friday night death slot w/ ZERO paid ad time. BoD wasn't a masterpiece, but from the start it was better than a heck of a lot of TV shows, & it had potential to be quite good. Thanks to you & yours, we'll never know. Congratulations, but don't shout down the opposition & then call it free speech. Nina (Smite me) (Debbie!!!!!!!!) mac.westie@verizon.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 22:21:06 -0000 From: John Mosby - Laptop <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: Tolerance. I still stand by Rottie's right to have whatever opinion she wants on a TV programme and if she feels strongly enough to act accordingly (within legal parameters). I only point out the less than great feeling she might get if a show she wholeheartedly endorsed and felt was great and worthy, was taken off the schedules because *I* felt it insulted my view of the world/that religion and then I openly celebrated that fact in front of her. Yes, it might be a little less comfortable to experience it from the other side and I could be construed as gloating and that's never a pretty sight. But I know Rottie and though we disagree on some fundemental stuff, *deliberately* making other people feel bad has never been her intention. On this occasion I think the tone was ill-advised and I do share some of the concerns about the way certain pressure groups (particularly the evangelical right) are expecting programming to reflect their values at the expense of others. I've never been comfortable with that degree of censorship. However I think we all can learn from the fact that the way we approach putting our view of a subject across can be as impotant as the message. I mean, I for one can tell the difference between a person posting their heart-felt opinons here and perhaps causing some consternation by the way they go about it and... say....someone who coming here *just* to be provocative and rude and bait other posters. I'm sure Nina would agree there's a difference, wouldn't you? :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "MacWestie" <mac.westie@VERIZON.NET> To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 8:48 PM Subject: Re: [HL] Tolerance. > Rottie cites the party line-- >> You just don't get it. Protest is an American way of life. It is all >> about >> free speech and the power of a market economy. > > How hypocritical of _you_ to tout freedom of speech. You & yours aren't > protesting anything; you are simply demanding that those who don't > precisely agree w/ your religious tenets should be _silenced_. That's NOT > the American way of life. At least, it hasn't been. > > Your free speech reply to BoD would be to air TV shows depicting your own > version of Jesus & all the rest, which your side already does--countless > conservative Christian TV shows air in the US. And, despite the > stomach-churningly obvious money-making aspect of many of these shows (& > the WWF-level of verisimilitude) (& the comical wigs), no one terrorizes > the networks & sponsors of those shows. And if anyone DID--you'd be > screaming religious prosecution. > > > >> The plain truth is that if BoD had been watchable, if the people who >> watched >> it had really liked it, it would still be on Christian protest or not. > > Again, the party line you spout is absurd. Your pals killed the show > before it even aired--3 weeks in a Friday night death slot w/ ZERO paid ad > time. BoD wasn't a masterpiece, but from the start it was better than a > heck of a lot of TV shows, & it had potential to be quite good. Thanks to > you & yours, we'll never know. > > Congratulations, but don't shout down the opposition & then call it free > speech. > > Nina (Smite me) (Debbie!!!!!!!!) > mac.westie@verizon.net > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:59:49 -0500 From: bizarro7@aol.com Subject: Re: Tolerance. >>-- Sandy (since when did this country become one of minority rule?) 2000. When we let Florida pick the president. Liser << Don't look at us. His brother did it all by himself. Leah ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 15:38:13 -1000 From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net> Subject: Re: Tolerance. Laptop John pontificates-- > However I think we all can learn from the fact that the way we approach > putting our view of a subject across can be as impotant as the message. I > mean, I for one can tell the difference between a person posting their > heart-felt opinons here and perhaps causing some consternation by the way > they go about it and... say....someone who coming here *just* to be > provocative and rude and bait other posters. > > I'm sure Nina would agree there's a difference, wouldn't you? No, I don't agree. Intolerant, small-minded, bigoted & hypocritical are exactly that, regardless of how sincere & chummy someone is about it all. And I assure you that being rude, provocative & baiting can be _utterly_ heartfelt. Nina (who actually comes here for the fried cheese) (no, wait, that's TGI Fridays) (Laptop John seems different...smaller, I guess) (& still no spell-check) mac.westie@verizon.net ------------------------------ End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 5 Feb 2006 to 6 Feb 2006 (#2006-33) ************************************************************