The BIG Lie (Jesus Confesses)

[From the "I Have Too Much 'Time, Inc.' On My Hands, So This Must Be 
 _Official_ News" Web site.]
 
  I couldn't help but notice that the supposed pillars of the religious
community, as well as their oh-so-decent-and-righteous followers, tell
such widespread, whoppingly big lies about the motivations behind their
public actions, as well as about their future intentions, that the true
source of corruption in the religious community must undoubtedly come
from "higher up" in the chain of commandments.

  For example, those who are concerned about their children accessing
obscene and satanic material on the InterNet might be expected to
supervise their children, as well as acquiring the InterNet tools that
are available for limiting their children's access to things which the
parents find objectionable. You would also expect them to seek out
information on sites that met standards that they found acceptable for
their children to access.
  In short, if their interests truly lay in censoring the information
their children access, you think they would do exactly that--control
and censor their children's activities on, and access to, the InterNet.

  I couldn't help but notice that, instead, they want to control the
activities and access of everyone who uses the InterNet. I find it hard
to believe that these people can claim to have the intellect to form
valid beliefs about religious and moral issues, yet not be intelligent
enough to understand the options available to them.
  This leads me to suspect that they are, in reality, two-faced liars,
particularly since impartial observers can predict the oppressive and
censorous results which are usually the exact opposite of what they
claim to be their intentions.

Patient: "Doctor, it hurts when I do _this_."
Doctor: "Then don't _do_ that."

   If those calling for control and censorship are truly worried about
their children, you would expect then to teach their children not to
"do that," and to not make available to them things which will allow 
them to "do that" if they have raised their children to be disobedient
and/or irresponsible.
  Instead, they seem to be taking the moral "high ground," as if under
the impression that they are moral "doctors" charged with diagnosing
others as having diseased morals, even if the others don't hurt when
they "do that."

Problem: Little Johnny wants to visit Paul Bradley's "Jesus Loves the
  Little Children From Behind" web site.
Solution: Don't let him do that.

Problem: Little Johnny might visit the Duncan Frissel "Pictures of 
  Jesus" site and find pictures of Jesus buggering the little children.
Solution: Don't let Little Johnny access sites that you don't know to
  be acceptable according to your standards.

  Now, was the foregoing too hard for those reading this to understand?
  If not, then what could be the reason for those promoting contol and
censoring of other people for suggesting the following option...
Problem: Little Johnny might access something on the InterNet which does
  not meet standards that his parent's find acceptable.
Solution: Require everyone on the InterNet to only engage in activities
  which meet the standards of Little Johnny's parents, starting by 
  putting the onus on everyone on the InterNet to "voluntarily" rate
  their website according to the standards of Little Johnny's parents.

Question:"When was the last time a doctor you didn't know made a 'house
  call' to check on your health, forced his way in when you objected,
  and gave you a prostrate exam against your wishes?"
Answer:"When the government declared that prostrate cancer was a threat
  to 'national security' and that early detection would 'protect the
  children' from child molesters and drug dealers."

  Since spirituality is not inherently related to fascism, it seemed to
me that the moral fascism being promoted by members of the Christian
community must be the result, not of spiritual values, but rather,
the result of the leader of the Christian religion being a moral
fascist.
  It was also obvious that, given the vast amount of lies being told
by Christians about their beliefs, motivations, and intentions, that
Christianity must be founded on lies and disinformation.
  Since I do not like to speak ill of someone without taking pains to
understand them from the standpoint of their own knowledge and beliefs,
I decided that I should have a talk with Jesus Christ, the founder and
espoused leader of the Christian religion, and give him a chance to 
respond to my view of himself and those who follow his example.

  Mr. Christ was kind enough to let me take notes during our long
conversation, so I am providing a transcript of the highlites of
the issues we discussed:
-----------------------
TruthMonger: "Mr. Christ..."
Jesus Christ: "Please, call me Jesus."

TruthMonger: "OK. Jesus, what the fuck is going on with all these people
  claiming that they have the right to force everyone on the face of the
  earth to live only within the boundaries of moral judgements approved 
  of by you?"
Jesus Christ: "Well, TruthMonger, you have to understand that I am the
  _only_ Way, the _only_ Truth, and the _only_ Light.  Accordingly, it
  is reasonable for my followers come to the conclusion that whatever
  I approve of is good and that everything else is bad."

TruthMonger: "As in, 'Everything Not Permitted, Is Forbidden!'?"
Jesus Christ: "Exactly. By the way, is that from '1984' or from 'Animal
  Farm'?"

TruthMonger: "Don't try to change the subject. Jesus! Oh, I mean that
  as a swear word, by the way...but this is exactly what I object to
  in your followers--the fuckers never give a straight, truthful 
  answer to the 'hard' questions. They always fall back on some inane
  quote of yours that has little to do with the issue being discussed."
Jesus Christ: "Well, you can't hold me accountable for their actions..."

TruthMonger: "Like _fuck_ I _can't_, shit for brains. You're in America,
  buddy, and we have conspiracy laws here. If the members of your cult
  go down, then you go down with them, and vice-versa.
  "You ever hear of Waco? David Koresh? Maharishi? John F. Kennedy?"
Jesus Christ: "You're trying to twist things around here, by comparing
  me and my followers to small cults and Democrats. After all, America
  is largely a Christian nation with Republican family values."

TruthMonger: "Bullshit! It's a democracy, with a legal seperation of
  Church and State. "America is a Christian nation" is just one more
  example of the lies your followers try to propogate every chance
  they get. It's clearly not true, but they refuse to face reality."
Jesus Christ: "I said, 'largely'."

TruthMonger: "Exactly. You use a word that infers that a 'majority'
  of Americans are Christian, in order to suggest that Christianity
  and Democracy are kissing cousins. This is the same goddamn thing
  that your followers do by constantly taking a smug, self-righteous
  stance that concepts like freedom, democracy, right and wrong, are
  all dependent on or connected to the Christian 'majority's' beliefs
  and morals.
  "You could just as well say, 'America is largely a "white" nation'
  but that pig doesn't fly anymore."
Jesus Christ: "Now _you're_ trying to twist _my_ words."

TruthMonger: "Christ! Oh, that's meant to be a swear word, too...BTW.
  "What I mean is that your words are being twisted a lot more by
  your Christian bum-buddies than I could ever hope to manage.
  "Which wouldn't concern me in the least if they weren't trying to
  force a potpourri of alleged 'superior' moral beliefs on the rest
  of us. This is the crux of the matter. As far as I am concerned.
  Christian fascism is the enemy of democracy and freedom."
Jesus Christ: "Well, that's one way of looking at it. However, you
  might also say, 'It's not perfect, but it's the best system we've
  got.'"

TruthMonger: "Please don't insult my intelligence. You could say the
  same thing about a bowl of 'shry back to take over until you're
  sure that your fascist lackeys have all the freedom lovers in
  chains."
Jesus Christ: "Is that supposed to be some kind of threat?"

TruthMonger: "Hey, pal. All I'm saying is that what is good for the
  gander is good for the goose.
  "As long as this country remains a democracy, then you'd better
  think twice about claiming to 'love all the little children' and
  you'd damn sure better make certain you have all the right permits
  before you go around turning water into wine."
Jesus Christ: "I resent the implication that I love the children 
  in anything but a purely 'spiritual' way."

TruthMonger: "Well, pal, the circumstantial evidence is against you
  on this one. Wasn't your father involved in some kind of scandal
  where he made a man and woman naked and then told them to fuck
  and party down?"
  "If I remember right, he had some kind of fetish about telling the
  Jews to fuck a lot and was always talking about their 'cum'."
Jesus Christ: "He used _decent_ words, like 'be fruitful and 
  multiply', and 'seed', not 'cum'."
  "And you should have capitalized the word 'Father' when you made
  mention of him, BTW"

TruthMonger: "Fuck you pal, I'm sending this to the CypherPunks
  mailing list. Are you the new list moderator? 
  "Good fucking luck..."
Jesus Christ: "I don't have to take this kind of abuse. I'm putting
  you on the 'flames' list."

TruthMonger: "Big deal. I'm already in Tim C. May's 'killfile'."
Jesus Christ: "If intolerance is such a Christian trait as you claim,
  then why is my 'flames' list smaller than Tim May's 'killfile'?"

TruthMonger: "Now you're twisting _my_ words. Are you related to
  Kent Crispin? Say... Come to think of it, why has no one ever seen
  the two of you together?"
Jesus Christ: "Let's just say that Kent and I agree on many issues
  that have to do with the sanctity of a higher authority.
  "No one has ever seen the evil Dr. Vulis and Satan together,l of eternity', then you'd better get to work on a way to
  stop the CypherPunks 'Eternity Server' from routing around fascist
  Christian moralism."
Jesus Christ: "Adam Back... Isn't he a member of that weirdo "Circle
  of Eunuchs" cult?"

TruthMonger: "That's for me to know, and for you to find out, pal.
  "Unless you can break PGP, of course."
Jesus Christ: "Hey, I'm just Jesus. I'm not Phil Zimmerman, for 
  _My_ sake."

TruthMonger: "Hey, watch your language."
Jesus Christ: "Sorry, I meant to say 'for _Dimitri's_ sake'."

TruthMonger: "I'll tell him you capitalized his name. He'll get a
  kick out of that.
  "Any last words before I turn in for the night?"
Jesus Christ: "Christianity recognizes privacy and freedom as damage,
  and steamrollers over them."

TruthMonger: "No shit!"
-----------------------

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All references to Tim C. May's Vernacular Translation of the Bible
are used without permission.
What's he going to do, sue me? Then he'd have to admits he gets
vicarious pleasure out of reading the posts in his killfile.
{There's more than _one_ way to push a <Delete> key.}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Alan wrote:
> 
> If you don't want to be treated like a fundie, don't act >like one.
> 
Whatever. So, evcen though I am not a fundie, I must say this in their
defense. So it's ok for you to bash the fundies, but not for them to
bash you. Hmm, who ever said turn-about is fair play must not have read
*your* rule book.

> Also...  There is a thing called "paragraphs".  Please >learn how to use them.  They will make you seem less like a >luser.
> 
Yes Mr. English teacher, sir. If how I write or type instead of the
content contained within shall be the basis of my losership, then there
is something wrong with the reader not the writer. (Besides, I use
Netscape under Linux 3.3 and there seems to be a problem with the
keyboard map. I've noticed it myself when I have read my own postbacks.
The message structure comes out differently than what I typed it in as.
It will take some time to track down the incorrect amappings. Please be
patient folks, and I will fix the  grammatical errors of my ways.)

You know, you are just about the biggest idiot I have ever had the
displeasure of reading. For one, the largest religion in the US right
now *is* in fact judeo-christian. The largest is Roman Catholic with
Pentacostal Protestant following right behind. Next, this country was
founded on christian beliefs, or have you failed to read the words of
the constitution of the US. Considering the apparent ignorance you have
displayed thus far about the makeup of the US, I would venture to say
that you probably have not read it. Next, you attack christians for
trying to control the content made available on the internet. At least
the site ratings plan is better than alot of other plans I have seen.
Besides, Oh Godlike TruthMonger, where is *your* surefire plan to halt
the spread of trash that *most* humans would want out of of the reach of
their children? I have not seen you *once* offer a straightforward clear
cut plan to efficiently handle *any* issue placed for discussion on this
listserv. I have seen you do nothing but slam, belittle, and degrade
others and their beliefs and ideas. You do this under the unimpressive
tag of "TruthMonger". If anything, you are anything but a TruthMonger.
When you can come up with a plan that even *remotely* seems like a
logically thought out, planned, and intelligent proposal on how to
handle the issues presented everyday on the internet that affect the
computing industry balanced with a concern for the children, then I will
listen. (And yes, I do agree that the parents of the children have an
obligation to monitor the content they are exposed to. It's called
responsible parenting which unfortunately is not a well practiced
ideology. And to take the wind out of your sales, I have 2 children and
as a parent I limit them to what is appropriate to their ages.) Until
such time as you can fulfill the obligations to us, the adult computing
population, and our offspring, the children (just in case your fuddled
mind does not know what they are), I suggest you rest those busy little
fingers of yours and listen to the underlying theme of the issues before
us. Until then, HateMonger, I have one suggestion for you..... Shut Up!

> You know, you are just about the biggest idiot I have ever had the
> displeasure of reading. For one, the largest religion in the US right
> now *is* in fact judeo-christian.

You know, I've never viewed the Christians as the problem.  The real
problem is a shortage of lions. 

Clearly we need to start a Cypherpunks Emergency Lion Breeding program
immediately. 

-LunchMonger

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     enoch@zipcon.com   $    via Finger                       $
         {Free Cypherpunk Political Prisoner Jim Bell}

On  8 Aug 97 at 18:26, David D.W. Downey wrote:

>  Next, this country was founded on christian beliefs, or have you
> failed to read the words of the constitution of the US.

Comments from Canada: Libertarians usually attibutes the reference to
the christian cult in the US constitution  as some sort of
psycho-epistemological failure or ill-weighed concession to the
peoples beliefs of the time.  IMO, it is a major flaw that led to
the actual state of affairs.   Causes have effects.  A is A and you 
cannot run away from the Nature of things.

> Considering the apparent ignorance you have
> displayed thus far about the makeup of the US, I would venture to say
> that you probably have not read it. Next, you attack christians for
> trying to control the content made available on the internet. 

Factually, they are one hell of a big pressure group trying to ram 
their personnal convictions down the throat of others, with a 
legalized gun to back them up.  I don't ask that you love eating 
Cheez-Whiz with corn syrup and peanut butter with a dash of Tabasco 
sauce so don't ask me to start eating your stuff.

> At least
> the site ratings plan is better than alot of other plans I have seen.

I would be surprized.  Ultimately, in their deep nature, they are all 
as evil.  A is A.  You will not, in the long run, be able to avoid 
the effects of their nature.

> I have seen you do nothing but slam, belittle, and degrade
> others and their beliefs and ideas.

The degradation perceived by whom?  He might be slightly harsher than 
others, but you discount the good laughs that it also gives to some 
others.  Actually, you should rejoice at 'Monger's opinions; 
doesn't your code of moral preach spreading the well of others at the 
expense of your own?  If not, then, tsk tsk tsk...


> You do this under the unimpressive
> tag of "TruthMonger". If anything, you are anything but a TruthMonger.

> When you can come up with a plan that even *remotely* seems like a
> logically thought out, planned, and intelligent proposal on how to

Sorry, but you disqualify for such thing.  The psycho-epistemology 
of religions makes it impossible.  Your axiomatic belief of God 
invalidates all logics.  Therefore, each time you request a 
"logically thought out" explanation, you commit the act of concept 
stealing, i.e. you use the end result of a philosophy to try to 
invalidate it.  But you know, what you saw in cartoons, the vacuum 
cleaner sucking itself into nothing or the snake eating it's tail and 
disappearing, it just doesn't exist...  Reality (with a capital R) 
doesn't work that way.  Sorry.

> handle the issues presented everyday on the internet that affect the
> computing industry balanced with a concern for the children, then I will
> listen.

You mean, "to get a ride on the gravy train, enforced under the 
treath of violence at the point of the governmental gun" ?

> (And yes, I do agree that the parents of the children have an
> obligation to monitor the content they are exposed to. 

Again, instead of using "moral duty", you use the word, "obligation".
Coercion galore!

> It's called

... according to some standards...
> responsible parenting 

Here, I tend to agree on your sentence but I have a hunch that our 
basic justifications are quite far...

Morality, according to cultists, is to be defined by the 
worshipped entity.  To free-living rationnal individuals, it should 
be defined according to the most accurately understood Nature of Man.

Most observer of the later would agree that parental supervision is 
necessary.  But also, most of thoses parents would agree that Freedom 
is required for man to live as Man, i.e. as a rationnal animal.

[This paragraph left intentionally unfinished]

> which unfortunately is not a well practiced
> ideology. 

Why "unfortunately" ? because it doesn't not suit your teleological 
slave mentality or because you truly care about other young Human 
Animals?  Personnally, it is because of the later reason.

> And to take the wind out of your sales, I have 2 children and

the relevancy of this disclosure baffles me.

> Until
> such time as you can fulfill the obligations to us

Who proclaimed such obligation?  The whole attempt at censorship is 
an attempt to make peoples accept this "obligation".  There is no way 
to bring a slave out of slavery when they willingly forge their own 
chains...

> population, and our offspring, the children (just in case your fuddled
> mind does not know what they are)

Here is a long term solution that would solve the problem definitely: 
to promulgate that everybody being offensed by the content of the net 
gets neutered.  That way, they won't have to worry about their 
children's viewing habits...

The acceptability of this solution passes all the tests that the one 
you propose does.  

If you have any arguments that does not have at it.s base, the 
negation of Reason, i.e. non-contradictory identification, then, give 
it your best shot.

jfa
-- 
Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds(Montreal) QC Canada
  JFA Technologies, R&D physicists & engineers
  Instrumentation & control, LabView programming.
PGP keys: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon
     and: http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html
PGP ID:C58ADD0D:529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 
PGP ID:5B51964D:152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C

> You know, you are just about the biggest idiot I have ever had the
> displeasure of reading. For one, the largest religion in the US right
> now *is* in fact judeo-christian. The largest is Roman Catholic with
> Pentacostal Protestant following right behind. Next, this country was
> founded on christian beliefs, or have you failed to read the words of
> the constitution of the US. 

Oh, like "Life, Liberty, and molesting the convenient altar boy"
The country was founded on some conception of god which was melded
with the general beliefs of the founders.  But if you are referring
to the original government of the united states, then you are
referring to a goverment which largely dealt with foreign
relations are rarely trod into the realms of personal liberty.
In fact, it was the liberty which england had violated that
all this crazy stuff started over.  Though the founders
of our nation were protestant or whatnot, they still realized the
importance of not letting their personal beliefs meddle with the
running of a government.  

> displayed thus far about the makeup of the US, I would venture to say
> that you probably have not read it. Next, you attack christians for
> trying to control the content made available on the internet. At least
> the site ratings plan is better than alot of other plans I have seen.

That is a very poor argument.  I guess hitler's plan was pretty
good to ensure an aryan nation because it was the best thing
available at the time?.   

> Besides, Oh Godlike TruthMonger, where is *your* surefire plan to halt
> the spread of trash that *most* humans would want out of of the reach of
> their children? I have not seen you *once* offer a straightforward clear
> cut plan to efficiently handle *any* issue placed for discussion on this
> listserv. 

Ok, here is the plan.  Anarchy.  when this happens, I am getting
my handy spoon and killing nameless members of the anti-cypherpunks
regime.  Heh, we can even have a little wagering pool on it.

I have seen you do nothing but slam, belittle, and degrade
> others and their beliefs and ideas. You do this under the unimpressive
> tag of "TruthMonger". If anything, you are anything but a TruthMonger.
> When you can come up with a plan that even *remotely* seems like a
> logically thought out, planned, and intelligent proposal on how to
> handle the issues presented everyday on the internet that affect the
> computing industry balanced with a concern for the children, then I will
> listen. (And yes, I do agree that the parents of the children have an
> obligation to monitor the content they are exposed to. It's called
> responsible parenting which unfortunately is not a well practiced
> ideology. And to take the wind out of your sales, I have 2 children and
> as a parent I limit them to what is appropriate to their ages.) Until
> such time as you can fulfill the obligations to us, the adult computing
> population, and our offspring, the children (just in case your fuddled
> mind does not know what they are), I suggest you rest those busy little
> fingers of yours and listen to the underlying theme of the issues before
> us. Until then, HateMonger, I have one suggestion for you..... Shut Up!

Blah, another believer that polysyllabic attack will somehow 
give credence to your argument.  Well, this obviously refined
message (not including the shut up at the end) is a good indicator
of just how fucked up this country is.  How about you go about
your business and I go about mine and we never meet unless you and
I agree to.  

Look, I have to talk to way too many morons like yourself everyday
and I must admit that it gives me headaches.  So go be a good
cybersitter and monitor the gigs of porn piped into your house
every day and don't bother me with your tripe.

God

::
Anon-To: cypherpunks@toad.com

David D.W. Downey wrote: 
> You know, you are just about the biggest idiot I have ever had the
> displeasure of reading.

  To tell the truth, I'm really embarassed. It's not bad enough that
the TruthMailer was hit by lightning and deleted my references to
Tim C. May's Vernacular Translation of the Bible (in a shoddy attempt
to throw the emnity caused by my post in his direction), but I have
sunk to such a low level of reputation capital that I am being looked
down on by someone whose cocaine habit caused him to do such evil 
things that he changed his name from Morton Jr. to David D.W.

  I won't even try to pretend that I can answer your objections to my
post, since I am just a "drunken voice, barfing in the wilderness."
  However, there is one who will come "after" me (hopefully, not with a
gun), who I am merely "preparing the way" for. He also came "before"
me (which you can verify by checking the archives).
  He is the one who turned the CypherPunks away from the electronically
graven image of PGP and taught us to be paranoid in spirit. He taught
us that, although we are Phil's chosen people, we must wander in the
algorithmic desert for 40 bytes before we enter the Private Land.
  He was accused by the ASCII-art priests. He was crucified on the 
cross of censorship, and was deleted, but he arose after three weeks 
of posts  by "something called a Toto" to redeem the list members from
the sins they committed in calling for censorship and for the death 
of the list.

  He forgives those of us on the list who manage to dodge his eternal
rapid-fire, even though he makes fun of us by saying, "My father's
house has many Mansons...and too many fucking Mongers."
  After his list res-erection, his disciples' posts have spread his
words far and wide, in a new, distributed list known as "The New
Testicle."
 {"In the beginning, was the Turd..."
  "Beware of politicians fucking people in sheeple's clothing..."
  "The Revelation of Timothy C. May, which Zimmerman gave unto him,
  to show unto the newbies things which must shortly come to pass
  after introduction of the Clipper chip..." }

    Since lightning never strikes twice in the same place, I will repost
the message as "The _Really_ Big Lie," with a self-rating of FUD.
  If you hated the remailed sequel, you will despise the original.

Jesus H. Fucking ChristMonger

David D.W. Downey wrote:
> 
> You know, you are just about the biggest idiot I have ever had the
> displeasure of reading. For one, the largest religion in the US right
> now *is* in fact judeo-christian. The largest is Roman Catholic with
> Pentacostal Protestant following right behind. 

judeo-christian isn't a religion.  Christian is.

> Next, this country was
> founded on christian beliefs, or have you failed to read the words of
> the constitution of the US. Considering the apparent ignorance you have
> displayed thus far about the makeup of the US, I would venture to say
> that you probably have not read it.

I have read the Constitution and the history behind it.  The US was
founded by people trying to escape religious persecution and/or trying
to get rich.  In case you can't figure it out, forcing your views down
my throat IS religious persecution -- exactly the same sort that sent
the Pilgrims off on the Mayflower.

> Next, you attack christians for
> trying to control the content made available on the internet. At least
> the site ratings plan is better than alot of other plans I have seen.
> Besides, Oh Godlike TruthMonger, where is *your* surefire plan to halt
> the spread of trash that *most* humans would want out of of the reach of
> their children? I have not seen you *once* offer a straightforward clear
> cut plan to efficiently handle *any* issue placed for discussion on this
> listserv. I have seen you do nothing but slam, belittle, and degrade
> others and their beliefs and ideas. 

That statement is somewhat similar to saying that if you don't like your
chains you are free to suggest the stocks or perhaps rope.

> You do this under the unimpressive
> tag of "TruthMonger". If anything, you are anything but a TruthMonger.
> When you can come up with a plan that even *remotely* seems like a
> logically thought out, planned, and intelligent proposal on how to
> handle the issues presented everyday on the internet that affect the
> computing industry balanced with a concern for the children, then I will
> listen. 

As long as the scum that gravitates toward LEAs and the Government
continue to do so it is relatively stupid to express (or defend) views
outside the accepted norm in an open fashion.  (I guess that makes me
sorta stupid, huh?)

> (And yes, I do agree that the parents of the children have an
> obligation to monitor the content they are exposed to. It's called
> responsible parenting which unfortunately is not a well practiced
> ideology. And to take the wind out of your sales, I have 2 children and
> as a parent I limit them to what is appropriate to their ages.)

I have two of my own and I don't see how "protecting" them in the ways
that you seem to like would do anything other than warp their worldview
to such a level that they will be esay prey for whatever scum they run
into in the meatworld.  

> Until
> such time as you can fulfill the obligations to us, the adult computing
> population, and our offspring, the children (just in case your fuddled
> mind does not know what they are), I suggest you rest those busy little
> fingers of yours and listen to the underlying theme of the issues before
> us. 

I don't know about TruthMonger but I did listen to the underlying theme
of the issues before us and I found that it was actually scum-suckers
and other bottom feeders trying their damnedest to steal my freedom. 
That's why I'm typing here and now.

> Until then, HateMonger, I have one suggestion for you..... Shut Up!

The hatemonger that I see in this interchange is not TruthMonger and
it's not me -- Let's see, I guess that leaves . . .

Not the TruthMonger,

Paul H. Merrill

I think you better check the IDs a little better next time.  That
interview was with someone from the religious hierarchy (or someplace
significantly lower)  ((it is so hard to tell them apart these days))
not Jesus.  Time is just about ripe to drive the moneychangers from the
temple again.

After all, you wouldn't like it if DDWD were to put out hisparty line
spoutings under TruthMonger would you?  In much the same way, I am sure
that Jesus does not care for the atrocities that have been and will be
done in his.

Paul H. Merrill

Well i was a amused and i'm a Christian. Pity the $%&#wits in the 
Christian right in America give real Christians such a bad name. Unlike 
truthmonger seems to think not all Christians are goosesteping fascists 
who like to bugger little kids for fun and profit. Sadly i guess as long 
as the fascists claim to be Christians, and try to get everybody to 
confrom to thier beliefs this sort of post will be in some ways accurate.

Jason

>Paul H. Merrill wrote: 
> judeo-christian isn't a religion.  Christian is.
> 
Judeo- Christian is a subsect of Christianity in it's generic form.
(Both my parents are ministers, and this has been drilled into my head.)

> I have read the Constitution and the history behind it.  >The US was founded by people trying to escape religious >persecution and/or trying to get rich.  In case you can't >figure it out, forcing your views down my throat IS >religious persecution -- exactly the same sort that sent
> the Pilgrims off on the Mayflower.
> 
1) I am not forcing my beliefs down *anyone's* throat. I do not seek to
control but to inform. As to the constitution, I served 8 years in the
military so I have a pretty good idea of what it does and does not mean.
I do not advocate internet control to the point of demanding that site
rankings or any such become mandatory. I do however agree that if we can
not police ourselves then this should be a warning that others may do it
for us. When the Protestants (originally the Quakers), came here, you
are correct in why they did come here, yet they also agreed among
themselves to police their actions themselves. This is something we are
failing to do. We are allowing stuff that children need not to see at
certain ages to proliferate all in the name of "If we don't allow this
freedom of expression to take place, it sends a signal that *all*
freedoms are up for grabs." That is simply not true. What is being
proposed is that a little common decency be exerted. After all, these
are children we are talking about. They do not have the capacities that
we do to process all information relating to certain issues. We have
experiences on our side that children do not, just through sheer lack on
their part of numbers of years on this planet. I mean are you really
suggesting that a child has the cognative abilities, at say the age of
6, to understand and make an informed opinion about sex with an older
person? I hope not! I mean, let's be realistic here. We have knowledge
gained thru living that children do not. I am in no way suggesting that
we blindly stuff all things remotely offensive off the net. I am saying
let us be responsible enough to give this information to our children in
doses they can handle. And yes, I will be the judge of what I feel my
children can handle. What is so wrong with adults putting a statement on
their sites that say, Hey parents, there *may* be info here that you
might want to be aware of for the kids' sakes.?

> That statement is somewhat similar to saying that if you >don't like your chains you are free to suggest the stocks >or perhaps rope.
> 
No, what I am saying is that if he doesn't like what has been proposed
to suggest an alternative in an adult fashion. I don't see how slamming
and belittling helps discussions.


> As long as the scum that gravitates toward LEAs and the >Government continue to do so it is relatively stupid to >express (or defend) views outside the accepted norm in an >open fashion.  (I guess that makes me sorta stupid, huh?)
> 
Not true. I will never agree with what our government proposes. In fact
I have an entire website dedicated to going *against* what the current
government proposes. I do not believe in the taking away of rights or
the forcing of a country's people to *have* to do half of what the
American government proposes. What I do suggest is that we, as a
community, need to look to ways that we can balance these issues out in
a manner that is agreeable to all involved. Inflammatory attacks,
degradation of someone based on cultural or religious beliefs has no
place in the discussions. The only reason I flamed at TruthMonger is
because I have only seen postings from that person that violates that
very critical issue. Everyone has the right to their opionions right,
wrong or otherwise. I just got sick of hearing him flame everyone with a
contrary view. And he seems to do this under the suggested banner of
truth. That I do not agree with. I don't condemn him for his views. They
are just as important as mine. I condemn his actions in slamming others
for not agreeing with *him*!

> I have two of my own and I don't see how "protecting" them >in the ways that you seem to like would do anything other >than warp their worldview to such a level that they will be >esay prey for whatever scum they run into in the meatworld.
> 
There is a difference between warping their views and ensuring that they
are mentally able to engage themselves in these issues. The issues that
befall each of us require an ability to see deeper into the causes,
actions and reactions of those with whom we interact. We have many
things, as adults, that we can bring to the tables of rationality and
discussion due to the fact that we learned through prior experiences.
Each and every one of us have sought guidance on any myriad of issues.
We are leaving a confusing mess for the next generation. I am just
saying that we may need to band together to give all of us some sort of
cue card as to what issues may be faced at various stops along the way
as we ride the information highway.
 
> I don't know about TruthMonger but I did listen to the >underlying theme of the issues before us and I found that >it was actually scum-suckers and other bottom feeders >trying their damnedest to steal my freedom. That's why I'm >typing here and now.
> 
I will grant that there are some out there that advocate the taking away
of rights. I am not one of them. I have bullet holes in me because I am
willing to put my life on the line for freedom and rights. I don't agree
with alot of what hardliners have to say. But they also have a say in
this. I will defend my rights and the rights and freedoms of others with
my last breath if need be. All I am saying is that there is a
constructive way to do things. Let's do it that way. I am no stranger to
being a politician's trump card to be played when all else fails to get
folks to listen at the talk tables. That is the very nature of
soldiering. Yet,  I also am not afraid to turn what I learned from them
against them if they should so force that issue. In short, yes, I will
use violence if *all* else fails to get them to listen to reason. But
that is after exhausting all other avenues of approach. The reason I
slammed "TruthMonger", is because I have yet to hear anything from him
other than pure rhetoric and inflamation. I am willing to listen to what
he has to say. Provided that he at least has some meat to his words, not
libel and slander. These solve nothing, and contribute even less.

> The hatemonger that I see in this interchange is not >TruthMonger and it's not me -- Let's see, I guess that >leaves . . .
> 
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you feel that I am a
HateMonger, you are entitled to that opinion. I am entitled to my
opinion that TruthMonger is anything but a TruthMonger, but is a
HateMonger. I will defend both your and mine opinions. I believe in the
ability to agree to disagree. I agree. I may have been hotheaded and
gone too far in my last email. For that I will apologize, both to
members of this list, as well as TruthMonger. I will not apologize for
my opinion of him.

At 12:43 pm -0400 on 8/9/97, Tim May wrote:
> Unless JC had a time machine, Judaism predates Xtianity.

Clearly you haven't read Paradise Lost...

;-).

Cheers,
Bob Hetttinga

-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

At 12:53 AM -0700 8/9/97, David D.W. Downey wrote:
>>Paul H. Merrill wrote:
>> judeo-christian isn't a religion.  Christian is.
>>
>Judeo- Christian is a subsect of Christianity in it's generic form.
>(Both my parents are ministers, and this has been drilled into my head.)

Not a _sub_sect, or subset, but a _super_set.

Unless JC had a time machine, Judaism predates Xtianity.

In any case, the convention is that "Judeo-Christianity" is the general
tradition connected with the Old Testament, the Ten Commandments, the
pre-Xtian prophets, and so on.

If your parents really drilled this "sub-sect" business into your head,
maybe you ought to ask them to lighten up on the drill, or use a different
bit, or something.

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

> If your parents really drilled this "sub-sect" business into your head,
> maybe you ought to ask them to lighten up on the drill, or use a different
> bit, or something.

At least they appear to have hit the right spot for a frontal lobotomy.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

At 06:26 PM 8/8/97 -0400, David D.W. Downey wrote while wearing a big "Kick
Me!" sign:

>You know, you are just about the biggest idiot I have ever had the
>displeasure of reading. 

You are new here, huh?

>For one, the largest religion in the US right
>now *is* in fact judeo-christian.

Sorry, "Jews for Jesus" is not quite that big.  They are about the only
faith that quite fits that label.  (Unless you count the all-inclusive
Bahai or the ALL-IN-ONE faith of Dr. Bronner.)

Oh, you mean Christian...  Trying to lump all Christian belief together
(along with Judaism) is like trying to lump all governments together and
claim they have the same laws.

> The largest is Roman Catholic 

Which some Christian sects argue is not Christian.  (For an extreme view of
this, read the tract "The Death Cookie" published by Jack T. Chick. It can
be obtained from http://www.jackchick.com/ .)

>with
>Pentacostal Protestant following right behind.

With big pointy knives...

The biggest growth in the Pentecostal church was during the Reagan
administration, when they emptied the mental hospitals.  Didn't your mother
ever tell you that just because all your friends are speaking in tongues,
it doesn't make it any less silly?

Just because lots of people believe a stupid thing, it does not make it any
less stupid.

> Next, this country was
>founded on christian beliefs, or have you failed to read the words of
>the constitution of the US.

Sounds like you have been prowling Christian book stores again.  Maybe you
should read the writings of the Founding Fathers and not just the books
your church has authorized for you.

A few suggestions:

-- The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine
<http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part1
.html>
   This book should be required reading for all Christians.  A expose of the
   difference between what the church tells you and what the Bible actually
   says.  (For a more condensed version take a look at:

<http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_jefferson/virginia_act.ht
ml>.)
   
-- The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom by Thomas Jefferson 

<http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_jefferson/virginia_act.ht
ml>
   This law was the basis of the separation of church and state in the
   constitution.  Read this and see if they were basing the country on your
   faith.

There are many others...

The founders of this country were of many different belief systems.  Many
of them were hated and reviled by the clerics of their day.  Of course,
evangelical Christians gloss over these facts in an effort to continue
their ~2,000 years of enslavement of the minds of men.

> Considering the apparent ignorance you have
>displayed thus far about the makeup of the US, I would venture to say
>that you probably have not read it. 

I am willing to bet that you have not either...  (Except for the excerpts
quoted in the books pushing the idea to the willing flock, written by the
Christians who wish to perpetuate the fraud.)

What in the Constitution makes you think that it was the Christian God that
was being mentioned and not the God of Deists?

>Next, you attack christians for
>trying to control the content made available on the internet. 

At last!  The plan exposed!  Damn right he attacks you!  But Christians get
pretty touchy when faced with criticism of their agenda.  (Or mentioning
that their beliefs are NOT the word of God, of exposing the flaws in
Christianity, or having any view that conflicts with the "One True God(tm)".)

>At least
>the site ratings plan is better than alot of other plans I have seen.

In other words, you can claim it is voluntary and make it look like you are
giving people a choice as you push your morality down their throats.  The
Bible Beaters try to impose their views of what is right and wrong, but get
pretty offended and huffy when others try and do the same thing.  (Like
when they push School Prayer, but freak out when the pagans want the same
options.)

How would you react if the ratings groups were stacked with Athiests,
Wiccans, Tantrics, and Jainists?  Would you be willing to accept their
judgements on the acceptability of your beliefs and speech?

I didn't think so.

>Besides, Oh Godlike TruthMonger, where is *your* surefire plan to halt
>the spread of trash that *most* humans would want out of of the reach of
>their children?

*Most* humans want their children to grow up ignorant about sex and the
outside world?

What about texts that are used as justification to commit mass murder and
enslavement?  How are you going to rate those?  (Books that teach that it
is right and proper to go off and kill your neighbors because they do not
believe in your God and happen to be on land your deity covets.)  Oh
wait...  That is the current dominant religion.  Can't censor that!

Children need to be challenged by ideas that are different from their own.
If they are not, then they grow up with ideas that they cannot
intellectually defend.  They grow up intelecually squishy.

I have known far too many Christians who never read anything that
challenges their basic belief structure.  Nothing that could dare shake
their faith in God and the Bible.  In their isolation, they are taught to
believe ideas that have no rational defense.  (Like Biblical inerrancy and
Creationism.)  When challenged, these outcasts from reason have to rely on
the "moral authority" of their unseen God or other appeals to authority to
try and defend their irrational beliefs.

If the rules your faith proposes were enforced impartially, your "holy
book" would be amongst the burned and censored.

> I have not seen you *once* offer a straightforward clear
>cut plan to efficiently handle *any* issue placed for discussion on this
>listserv. I have seen you do nothing but slam, belittle, and degrade
>others and their beliefs and ideas. You do this under the unimpressive
>tag of "TruthMonger".

But since "TruthMonger" is an anonymous identity and a nym for someone
else, you have no idea that this is true.  (Actually it is not.
TruthMonger has made a number of suggestions, but they conflict with your
worldview.)  But I forgot...  You believe in Jesus.  (The original urban
legend...)  You have infallible insight into the way things should be.

Some to think of it, I have not seen you post any suggestions at all.  Just
this weeny little screed when your belief structure is threatened.

> If anything, you are anything but a TruthMonger.
>When you can come up with a plan that even *remotely* seems like a
>logically thought out, planned, and intelligent proposal on how to
>handle the issues presented everyday on the internet that affect the
>computing industry balanced with a concern for the children, then I will
>listen. (And yes, I do agree that the parents of the children have an
>obligation to monitor the content they are exposed to. It's called
>responsible parenting which unfortunately is not a well practiced
>ideology.

"When you can come up with a way to censor the net, then I will believe you."

"When you come to accept my priorities and my belief system, then I will
listen."

"When you come up with a plan that meets MY goals, then we'll talk."

Of course "concern for the children" is just another way of saying
"eliminating content that offends the parents".

If you don't want your children exposed to "information that might harm
them", then don't let them on the net.  The net was never designed or meant
to be a "family friendly" environment.  It was meant as a way for ADULTS to
exchange information.  Of course, your kind would like to reduce the
intellectual and emotional content of the net to that of a mythical twelve
year old...  Nothing to offend or challenge your beliefs...  (So you can
keep your kids in the same mental gulag that you have imposed on your own
minds.)

Maybe you need to ask yourself *WHY* this material offends you so much?

"Protecting children" is the first refuge of the censor.

>And to take the wind out of your sales, I have 2 children and
>as a parent I limit them to what is appropriate to their ages.)

I guess there is a seeker born every minute...

Or at least, what you perceive that to be...  I find it sad that you have
reproduced at all.  Hopefully your children will learn to seek information
not filtered through the eyes of the bible-believer.  

> Until
>such time as you can fulfill the obligations to us, the adult computing
>population, and our offspring, the children (just in case your fuddled
>mind does not know what they are), I suggest you rest those busy little
>fingers of yours and listen to the underlying theme of the issues before
>us.

What obligation is that?  I have no obligation to you and I SERIOUSLY doubt
if you represent the "computing public".  (Or at least, I hope not, though
that might explain COBOL...)

I think you need to reread what you wrote there.  

We have no obligation to you or your "God".  Our tongues shall not praise,
nor shall we kneel.  

We shall oppose your attempted dominion over the minds and bodies of men.

We will not bend over for the rod and staff of Jesus.

We shall will paragraphs.

> Until then, HateMonger, I have one suggestion for you..... Shut Up!

Or what?  Will Daddy spank?

I think you need to get a better connection to a clue server.

Or in the words of Crow T. Robot: "Bite me!"


---
|              "That'll make it hot for them!" - Guy Grand               |
|"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer:         |
| mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!"  | Ignore the man      |
|`finger -l alano@teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key  | behind the keyboard.|
|         http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/       |alan@ctrl-alt-del.com|

> > The largest is Roman Catholic 
> 
> Which some Christian sects argue is not Christian.  (For an extreme view of
> this, read the tract "The Death Cookie" published by Jack T. Chick. It can
> be obtained from http://www.jackchick.com/ .)
> 

I'm inclined to agree with the RC's not being The same as prodestants 
comment. Why else would you have had Luther and the other reformers if 
some of catholicism wasn't a problem ??


> The founders of this country were of many different belief systems.  Many
> of them were hated and reviled by the clerics of their day.  Of course,
> evangelical Christians gloss over these facts in an effort to continue
> their ~2,000 years of enslavement of the minds of men.
> 

Is it worth noting at this point that an evangilical Christian and the 
religious right have little in common. Evangelicals (I'm one) belive the 
Bible to be the word of God etc.. but don't add anythign else to it and 
certianly wouldn't force thier beliefs down your throat. They would 

> 
> >Next, you attack christians for
> >trying to control the content made available on the internet. 
> 
> At last!  The plan exposed!  Damn right he attacks you!  But Christians get
> pretty touchy when faced with criticism of their agenda.  (Or mentioning
> that their beliefs are NOT the word of God, of exposing the flaws in
> Christianity, or having any view that conflicts with the "One True God(tm)".)
> 

I would also have a problem with Christians controlling and censoring the 
net. I would welcome (and do welcome) sites that which to argue against 
Christianity. What wrong with that ?? It simply provides a forum for 
Christians to defend thier beliefs. Besides if I censor you now because i 
find your content un acceptable whats to stop you censoring me later when 
your in the majority ! What utter stupidity to load the gun for others. 
Particularly as i am a Christian I WOULD be critical of some of the 
religious rights ideas and agendas and would happily argue from the Bible 
that they are not a good thing.


> In other words, you can claim it is voluntary and make it look like you are
> giving people a choice as you push your morality down their throats.  The
> Bible Beaters try to impose their views of what is right and wrong, but get
> pretty offended and huffy when others try and do the same thing.  (Like
> when they push School Prayer, but freak out when the pagans want the same
> options.)

I thought school pray was outlawed in the states ?? 

> 
> How would you react if the ratings groups were stacked with Athiests,
> Wiccans, Tantrics, and Jainists?  Would you be willing to accept their
> judgements on the acceptability of your beliefs and speech?
> 

Would they be willing to accpet my view on thiers ?? If yes then i'll 
accept thiers on mine


> >Besides, Oh Godlike TruthMonger, where is *your* surefire plan to halt
> >the spread of trash that *most* humans would want out of of the reach of
> >their children?

Such as ?? As has been said before you can get censorware to control 
thier access.


> Children need to be challenged by ideas that are different from their own.
> If they are not, then they grow up with ideas that they cannot
> intellectually defend.  They grow up intelecually squishy.

I must agree with that point

> I have known far too many Christians who never read anything that
> challenges their basic belief structure.  Nothing that could dare shake
> their faith in God and the Bible.  In their isolation, they are taught to
> believe ideas that have no rational defense.  (Like Biblical inerrancy and
> Creationism.)  When challenged, these outcasts from reason have to rely on
> the "moral authority" of their unseen God or other appeals to authority to
> try and defend their irrational beliefs.

Christians whould read challenging stuff. IT expands thier mind and 
strengthens thier beliefs (Well i find it does), and in my expirence a 
Christian who cant defend thier faith needs to learn more. Although i 
would disagree with dismissing creationism and Biblical inerrancey. (not 
that is is an appropriate forum for such a discussion)

Well intersting post. I hope the response is of some use.

Jason =8-]

You know you have made alot of assumptions about me that are neither
warranted nor given basis for existing from my posting. You are just as
guilty as I am on assumptions. So before *you* get all high and mighty,
figure out first if that is *actually* who I am. Don't use me as a
scapegoat that you can use to expound *your* particular beliefs about,
just as you take offense at some of the assumptions I made regarding
TruthMonger. I do not advocate anything but my own personal thoughts on
matters. Neither do I walk *any* party line. (In fact I am registered as
independant so that I am forced to be impartial on issues as I am then
not stuck with any one parties beliefs. This little flare of temper on
my part though does show me one thing at least. There are *many* here
that do just the same type of lumping as they accuse me of. Hmm, I
forgot. Everyone is perfect, therefore this post is not real and neither
are you as in a perfect world there would be no need for me to have this
discussion. In that case, I bid you an unreal goodnight.

At 09:52 AM 8/10/97 -0500, jf_avon@citenet.net wrote:
>
>On 10 Aug 97 at 5:17, David D.W. Downey wrote:
>
>> Neither do I walk *any* party line. (In fact I am registered as
>> independant so that I am forced to be [...]
>
>This sentence gave me good laughs!  Just a rhetorical question: *who* 
>exactly _forces_  you ?

"The problem with being an anarchist is there are so many rules.  You have
to hate the government, attend the meetings, and pay your dues every month."

David Downey is just a big bundle of contradictions.

I would just be happy if he would learn about paragraphs.



>
>As an independent (of whatever plurality of entities), what prevents 
>you to side with one of them?
>
>JFA
>If contradiction was killing  swiftly,  there would be no religions 
>left....
>-- 
>Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds(Montreal) QC Canada
>  JFA Technologies, R&D physicists & engineers
>  Instrumentation & control, LabView programming.
>PGP keys: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon
>     and: http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html
>PGP ID:C58ADD0D:529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 
>PGP ID:5B51964D:152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C
>
---
|              "That'll make it hot for them!" - Guy Grand               |
|"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer:         |
| mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!"  | Ignore the man      |
|`finger -l alano@teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key  | behind the keyboard.|
|         http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/       |alan@ctrl-alt-del.com|

On 10 Aug 97 at 5:17, David D.W. Downey wrote:

> Neither do I walk *any* party line. (In fact I am registered as
> independant so that I am forced to be [...]

This sentence gave me good laughs!  Just a rhetorical question: *who* 
exactly _forces_  you ?

As an independent (of whatever plurality of entities), what prevents 
you to side with one of them?

JFA
If contradiction was killing  swiftly,  there would be no religions 
left....
-- 
Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds(Montreal) QC Canada
  JFA Technologies, R&D physicists & engineers
  Instrumentation & control, LabView programming.
PGP keys: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon
     and: http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html
PGP ID:C58ADD0D:529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 
PGP ID:5B51964D:152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C