PUBLIC APOLOGY

Subject: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: wysiwyg
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 06:31 PM

People, the time has come. I have been thinking about this for a long time. This will not have much to do with music but perhaps it has to do with tolerance within our Mudcat community and I would hope that tolerance is always pertinent.

The things people assume about Christians seem to make it so clear how much hurt has been done to people in the name of "Christianity." So I have three things to say about this.

First, there are people actively working within churches and the world of organized religion to stop these hurts, to help people heal from them when they have occurred, and to help the people who do them to stop doing them.

Second, I am one of those people and it would help me do this better if you would send me a personal message telling me what awful things Christians have ever done to you, or to people you care about, because I need to see it from your viewpoint.

But third, and most important, I am sorry. You probably do not know that within Christian circles, "we" talk about this (and whine at each other about this) on and on, and about how "we" "ought" to treat people, and how our fellow Christians ought to treat people. But we seldom seem to come out in public and own up to the bad things that "we" do. And since "we" claim the name "Christian," we bear a share of the work of answering for these abuses, even when we ourselves have not done those things so feared and hated by our non-Christian friends.

So I apologize for whatever evil has been done to each and every one of you by someone waving the flag of Christ. It isn't enough, I know.

~Susan

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Amergin
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 06:39 PM

Uh, Susan, why do you feel the need to apologise for the actions of a few? I know you are not like those who gave your religion a bad name. You didn't go around committing genocide, burn witches, and whatnot in the name of your god. Just because your god is not mine doesn't mean I don't respect him. I very much respect and admire Christ. He was a great political and religious leader in his time. He tried so much to help his people and it got him crucified. In fact he is the most famous martyr for the cause of the common man. One more thing, it is not the lips that speak the loudest, it is the heart. You have just shown us yours. Blessed be.

Amergin

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: wysiwyg
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 06:43 PM

Amergin,

Why? Because I feel (hear, see) the need of those who have been hurt, for the offering of the apology. When I have offered it privately to an individual, it has made a difference for them.

~S~

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 06:59 PM

My view is different to yours Praise. I agree that a great amount of damage has been done in the name of Christainity but ultimately, all of the damage has been done by the failure of Christains to follow the teachings of Christ.

I admit to my many failures and will apologise for those but I think it unfair to suggest that Christians should appologise for the wrongs committed by other Christians.

My own experience with many of my fellow Christians has been far from happy because I am a little bit different and have had a few problems over the years. The very people who you would think would be the first to help have often been the first to condemn and I refuse to be held accounatble for the damage they do not just to others but to our own religion.

Jon

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: GUEST,Don Meixner
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 07:10 PM

This is aimed at Self Avowed Christians but it could as well be Muslims, or Jews, or Hindus, or Sihks or any number of religioud people who feel that zeal and evangelicism is the only way to express their faith.

If I have a resentment it is to those Christians who assume that because I don't were my faith on my sleave or on the trunk of my car that I am not truly a Christian. I try to live my life in a charitable and honorable way. To help those who need my help. I try to raise my children with a set of values and a sense of fair play.

I resent the crowd who insists I listen to them extole the virtues of their faith while at the same time they are denegrating my beliefs. The evangelical crowd who shouts down a faith that has stood me in good stead in moments of my need are no different than those who use religion as an allowable excuse for terrorism. The vocal few that feel that their faith is better and their laws are "juster" are cut from the same cloth as those who blow up barracks, aircraft, stores, open air markets, and public assemblies in the name of God. The diference between those Christians and THIS CHRISTIAN is Jesus said "Cut them some slack." so I do.

I resent the notion that the path to heaven and the mysteries there of can only be explained by a man.

I resent the notion that the way people love people is sinful in some cases.

I don't feel the need to give or accept appologies for my faith. I am the person that I am and I believe as I do because the example given to me Christ is a good way to live. I try to live that way.

I won't tell you what to read or watch because I don't approve of what you like. I won't use my religion as an excuse to trade in politics. I won't tell you how to pray or who can preach to you

I will feed you when you come to my door hungry. I will offer the best blessing I can for you. If you are cold there is room by my fire. There is no charge for this, it is freely given because Jesus said " Do unto others..." Just as did Buddah, Mohammed, and other teachers. I will treat you and your faith with the same consideration I would wish of mine. I'll help if i can and I will do more if needed. Just ask.

Don

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Mbo
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 07:23 PM

This ain't commin' from no prophet...
Just an ordinary man
When I close my eyes I see
The way this world shall be
When we all walk hand in hand...

When the last child cries for a crust of bread
When the last man dies for just words that he said
When there's shelter over the poorest head
We shall be free

When the last thing we notice is the color of skin
And the first thing look for is the beauty within
When the skies and the oceans are clean again
Then we shall be free

We shall be free, we shall be free
Stand straight, and walk proud
'Cause we shall be free

When we're free to love anyone we choose
And this world's big enough for all different views
When we can all worship from our own kind of pew
Then we shall be free

We shall be free, we shall be free
Have a little faith and hold out
'Cause we shall be free

And when money talks for the very last time
And nobody walks a step behind
And there's only one race and that's mankind
Then we shall be free

We shall be free, we shall be free
Stand straight and walk proud
Have a little faith and hold out
We shall be free
We shall be free
Stand straight!
Have a little faith!Walk proud! Hold out!
We shall be free


--Mbo

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Dulci46
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 08:41 PM

Mbo that was beautiful!!!

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 08:54 PM

Garth Brooks, I believe.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: bbelle
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 08:57 PM

Praise ... I don't care what your religion is, as long as you do not wave it in my face. I do, however, care that your have started this thread on this forum, which I think is totally inappropriate. This is not a religious forum and, while religion does come into play because we have discussions on gospel music, etc., your thread is a blatant attempt to wave your banner. It's as if you are proselytizing and patronizing, both at the same time ... moonchild

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Mbo
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 08:59 PM

Sho' 'nuff is, Jeri. One of my favorites.

--Mbo

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: mjm
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 09:34 PM

PRAISE FOR PRAISE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MOONCHILD, IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED, THERE IS A TON OF STUFF ON THIS FORUM THAT IS NOT RELATED TO MUSIC. ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS IN OTHER THREADS, IT IS POINTED OUT THE VALUE OF NOT PARTICIPATING IN ANY PARTICULAR DISCUSSION IF YOU FIND THE CONTENT TO BE OFFENSIVE. IT DOESN'T GET ANY EASIER THAN THAT. M

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: dwditty
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 09:47 PM

De Colores!

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: GUEST, The Yank
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 10:15 PM

I also don't think this is the appropriate forum for proselytising thinly disguised as 'mea culpa', but since you ask, off the top of my head:

Jerry Falwell.

Pat Robertson

The 'Moral Majority'[sic].

Ian Paisley.

Georgie Bush in South Carolina.

The KKK (good Christians, all).

And these are just the smug, self-satisfied, homophobic,narrow-minded, racist bigots who think they have the God-given right to tell everyone else how to live their lives that the world has been afflicted with recently. It doesn't bear going back into history, nor is there enough space available to catalog the atrocities.

And too bloody right, ~Susan, it damn well ISN'T enough.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: bbelle
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 10:23 PM

mjm, obviously you don't know me very well. I don't yell and I don't post anonymously ... I simply say what I have to say. Perhaps you should remove your caps lock and talk in a lower tone of voice. This thread is totally inappropriate. In no way, shape, form, or fashion does it even remotely relate to music. It is religious patronizing, at it's best. It belongs on a religious forum. Whether you like it or not, this is a music forum. We have been asked to live harmoniously with those of different opinions, as to what information should be allowed on the forum. This thread, however, pushes that request to the limit ... moonchild

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: GUEST,Joerg
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 10:36 PM

Susan - maybe I know some advice although I'm not sure. It may sound a little too scientific or too rational after all that was said up to here, and I don't know if it helps you, but at least it helped me.

Try to find out what exactly e.g. the following words mean to you in particular - thus finding out the differences between them:

Religion - religiosity - belief - heaven/hell - christian - christianity - love - tolerance - peace - church - organized religion - moral - ethics - sin - good/bad ...

You know e.g. 'christianity' is not just a noun made from the adjective 'christian'. Witches were burnt in the name of christianity but was that christian? If not, who is to blame for that fatal mistake? Christianity, the church, Mr. ..., or even YOU? (Well if you really think that it was you just tell us and we will have you arrested and condemned and hanged on the highest tree because crucifiction is a little tasteless nowadays and then we can live in peace with ourselves and you can have a place in history not to say become immortal and and and... ;->)

There are many, many key questions you can ask to find out those differences. Just some examples:

- What do you think will get you to heaven: Decent behaviour or strong belief? Obeying rules many religions tell or supporting your church? ...

- What is more important to you: Getting to heaven or behaving well on earth? (Would you go to hell for the welfare of somebody you love or to get him/her to heaven? Do you think doing so will get you to hell? BTW - what's love?)

- What do you think is better: Whining about mistakes done by others together or avoiding them yourself quite alone?

I am sure you will run into many more questions of this kind if you think about the above words and what they mean to you when trying to answer such questions. When you're done with it, i.e. when you know what all of this means to you - then ask yourself again whether there is a need to apologize. (Well - maybe so...)

Love

Joerg

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: flattop
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 10:41 PM

What I really hate about Christians, Susan, is the CAPLOCKS! Just kidding. I trust that you haven't gone on this rant because I apologized but didn't answer your question about why I bait you on a recent thread. The answer may be long and complicated. I might have to admit that I can be a miserable sot and that you may the closest thing we have to a Mudcat saint. And then there's the question that Viki Gabereau discussed with Joshua Halberstam, the author of Everyday Ethics, 'If the saint is such a great guy, why doesn't anyone want to spend the afternoon with him?'

You could lighten up on your flagellant fettish though. Christianity wasn't all that bad. Even Christianity had it's lighter moments like when Constintine outlawed infanticide after he had murdered his own son and had second thoughts.

Hope you're feeling better, Susan. Looks like you found the energy to write a shitload of e-mails today. Keep up the good work, girl.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: GUEST,Banjo Johnny
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 10:44 PM

While I don't think one person can apologize for another, I don't see anything wrong with making a statement about values, religious or musical.

I am a guest here, and it seems to be not a forum strictly about music, but a discussion among musicians about ... almost anything. What's wrong with that? Musicians do occasionally think about other things. == Johnny

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Wavestar
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 10:49 PM

Moonchild, I don't understand why you say this is patronising, or even prostyletising. I think given the tone of what Praise said, you could respond with more grace. You are right, this isn't music related. I don't care, I understand that you do, and you have a valid point- but I don't think it's patronising. She never asked you to become Christian, she never said hers was the only way- she only apologised, as best she could, for all the things that have been done under the name of Christ to offended people - these people, here, on mudcat, perhaps like yourself, I wouldn't know. As for The Yank- Every group, race, and nation in the world has commited atrocities. Horrible things have been done in the name of peace, of love, or God, Allah, whatever thing you can name. That does not make these things bad. That does not mean that all the good things also inspired by these causes, beliefs, etc, should be discounted. I believe that Praise is a good, kind, honest, giving woman, who follows her Christian ideals to heal instead of hurt, and give instead of take, push down, or fear. She has no duty to apologise as she did - and you have no right to suggest that she should do more, or indeed, that any of us who are Christian, and are NOT these people you name nor follow them, should owe you or the world more. We are sorry that pain has been caused. I would heal it if I could. But don't turn the accusing finger on me or be angry at me - my beliefs, of goodness, kindness, honesty, and healing, not those of Pat Robertson, are what I call Christianity.

I just think it's funny... everyone complains that the Christians rule the world, and squash all other religions in our path - has anyone else out there found out how had it is to be a Christian and not be railed upon for your beliefs? I don't feel like the winner.

-Jessica

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Victoria H.
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 10:52 PM

As to "It is not enough...." That was not the point, was it? ....How can even the most heartfelt attempt of one person ever be "enough" to erase the pain caused by many? I don't think the original post meant anything of the kind.It was a step, a beginning, one person trying to heal instead of hurt. Any step in the direction of acceptance, tolerance and brotherhood (sisterhood, personhood, you choose...) is one step closer than before, and as such, every step counts. If one person may take one step, think of how far we can move together if all of us did the same? I applaud you, Praise, as I would applaud any person of any religion, for reaching out in the first place - and I feel compelled to add that while the past is out of our hands, we can still make a difference for the future. The blame of the past lies on the heads of those that hurt others in the past... but the hope of the future lies in our hearts, our hands and our voices, and in the children we raise to embrace differences rather than despise them. This means all of us, not just one religion or group. We have a long way to go, no matter what our individual religion (or lack of religion) may be - and each of us can make a small difference that is part of a larger equation. I am speaking from my own Christian viewpoint, but this is something I discuss often with my friends, the closest and dearest of whom just happen to be Jewish, Pagan, Catholic and Gay, respectively. These are people I am proud to have in my life, and they are blessings to me.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: mjm
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 10:53 PM

and why is that you, moonchild, feel as though this thread in particular does in fact push the "request to the limit". because it is a personal and or spiritual upset to you and other participants, because it strikes a very sensitive cord. no pun. whose limit are we referring to and defining. yours? max's? as previously stated, there are dozens of threads here that do not relate to music. hence, open forum. if it is okay to talk about earthquakes, death chambers, Elian (sp?), sports, sexy accents, etc., then why not this subject? additionally, i do not post anonymously; i'm not new here.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Mbo
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 10:53 PM

Facts show that Christianity is the one most persecuted religious group in the world. Guess it's our just desserts...

--Mbo

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Gypsy
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 10:57 PM

Interesting. I am expected to apologize for my beliefs, and totally accept others beliefs, when they tread upon mine. Guess what? I AM Christian, play music, and don't find the two any way incompatible. After all, the psalm sez "Make a joyful noise unto the Lord with tabour and harp" I won't step on your philosophy, please don't step on mine.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: flattop
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 11:05 PM

Yanker's list might suggest that it's men who give Christianity a bad name. Not a woman mentoned by name.

And isn't it easier to step on a skipping rope than than on a philosophy?

I too applaud Praise. We just have trouble communicating.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: bbelle
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 11:08 PM

Well, dear, I'm not near here either. I've been here since 1997 and I've read thousands of threads which don't give song lyrics or talk about instruments, etc. I have never seen a thread so blatantly patronizing in nature ... moonchild

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Áine
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 11:10 PM

My dearest darlin' Praise,

You are one brave woman. I applaud your respect for us all, your grace of expression, and your obvious agape love for all us Mudcatters (assenters and dissenters alike).

Although I don't think you personally have anything to apologize for, I will accept your apology in the name of all the so-called "Christians" who have caused me personal distress. And since I grew up in the Bible Belt, you can well imagine how many of them there have been in my life. I don't hold you responsible for any of their actions, but, as they say, never look a gift horse in the mouth (nothing personal, you understand *BG*).

I will hold your warm and loving declaration close to my heart always as an affirmation of the true love of Christ (and of every other person who ever walked this earth and swam against the current of human misery and hatred) and I thank whatever higher power there may be that I call you 'friend'.

-- Áine

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Victoria H.
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 11:10 PM

PS to Jessica.... I do know what it is like to be a Christian and railed upon for my beliefs. In my circle of friends and aquaintences, in that respect I have always been a minority. Being a minority, and railed upon for my beliefs has made me more determined than ever to never do that to another person.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: mjm
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 11:16 PM

patronizing is only your opinion, moonchild, which is not to imply that your opinion does not have worth. but you made a very clear statement by saying that [this] pushed the limit and i would still like to know who is responsible here for defining this limit which, by your standards, has been exceeded. m

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: GUEST,Barry Finn
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 11:18 PM

I'M SORRY
I'm Sorry...So Sorry, that I was to cool
I didn't know cool could be so cruel
Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh yes
You tell me, mistakes, are part of being born again
But, that, don't right the wrong that's been done

I'm Sorry, I'm Sorry
So Sorry, So Sorry
Please, accept my apology
My faith was blind and I was too blind to see
Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh yeah

You bless me then confess to me, that you are to young
But, that, don't right the wrong that's been done
Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh yeah

I'm Sorry, to Sorry, words can't express my apology
So I'll forgives all & hope all forgives me
OOOOh, Hoooo, Hooooo, Hoooo, Hoooooooooo

You sold me then told me please except my deep regrets
I was not like you so that's what I gets.
Oh no, no, no, no,no,no

So you're sorry, so sorry so please except my apology
After writting this you won't be near as sorry as me.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa

Barry, who's not at all sorry cause I know I've already been forgiven (I can't stop myself).

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: flattop
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 11:23 PM

If you don't mind thread creep, have you noticed that old hymns that were most popular seem to emphasize chordal notes? Amazing Grace seems to hang on the notes of the chord, same for Roll Jordan Roll. And that bit in Will Your Anchor Hold where it walks down the chord on the words, 'grounded firm and deep.' Amazing. Modern melodies seem mushier because the go in steps rather than chordal jumps. I could be wrong, but what the...

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 11:24 PM

Susan, I didn't find your message to be either patronizing or proselytizing. As a Jew, I know a little bit about religious intolerance, and I didn't feel a shred of that in what you've said. I know you personally haven't harmed me personally in any way, but I feel comfortable accepting your message and apology in the spirit in which it was offered. If only the worst offense any of us ever committed were to apologize unnecessarily or even "inappropriately", the world would be much better off.

I was about to mention the same thing Mbo did, about Christians being persecuted. Then it just occurred to me that it may actually be another Internet myth, since I've never seen any documentation and don't know how one could "prove" it. Then it further occurred to me that it really doesn't matter--since there's no denying that Christians and other groups are persecuted--UNLESS this "fact" is used to justify further intolerance. Which, in this circumstance, doesn't seem to be the case.

Sadly, the concept of "enemy" seems to be hard-wired into our human nervous systems, and fanatics are fanatics no matter what their stripe. But I for one am glad for a place like the Mudcat, where human beings who happen to like folk music (and blues!), can occasionally share non-"musical" thoughts and ideas with the expectation, or at least the hope, that they will be treated with dignity and respect.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: paddymac
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 11:24 PM

Seems like too many folks believe that nothing needs changing so much as the other guy's religion, whatever it might be. I wish I could claim that as an original line, but somebody or other said it long time ago. I could care less about words of apology. But I truly do appreciate deeds that speak the same message. Words are cheap. Actions speak much more loudly.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: bbelle
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 11:27 PM

I don't believe that I ever indicated that my limits and opinions are other than my own. So ... since this is an unrestricted forum, one must set one's own limits. This is, of course, said under the assumption that you wouldn't limit my opinions... moonchild

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Áine
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 11:31 PM

Dear Mark,

Two occasions of the persecution of Christians come to mind, 100 years apart, which goes to show that the more things change, etc. -- The Boxer Rebellion in mainland China, when Christian missionaries and their converts were murdered in horrendous ways in 1900, and the killings of Christian priests and converts in India in the past few weeks, in like horrendous fashion.

-- Áine

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: GUEST,John Gray / Australia
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 11:34 PM

Some years ago a noted journalist here wrote an article titled "god save us from christians". It's got the makings of a good song title.

Regards / John Gray (whowasachristianuntilhebeltedthecrapoutofthecatholicpriestwhowasconductingourpreweddinginterviewandisnottheleastbitsorryfordoingso) FME

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: mjm
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 11:48 PM

praise, what a beautiful thing you've created here. chosen a subject, although perhaps not intentionally, which many obviously feel so passionate about... got the blood flowing, brain cranking, heart pounding, sparks flying, and some angels singing, too. merci beaucoup! m

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: bob jr
Date: 27 Jun 00 - 11:59 PM

um i figure that anyone who took the time to look into the historical research that has been done on "christ" and what we now know as christianity would have a hard time making the two things fit together. you want to apologize to someone praise? apologize to Jesus!

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 12:09 AM

1) Isn't it interesting how a number of intelligent people can look at the same facts or situations and reach totally different conclusions and have very different reactions? .....seems to me there is a lot more than attempts at reason going on in people's heads.

2)My own attempts a reason have led me to the conclusion that "Freedom of Religion" also implies freedom FROM religion for those who wish. I wish it were as easy as the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that you can't have 'official' prayers before High School football games......definitions of 'folk' is easy compared to the high emotion in this discussion.

3) Peanut Butter sandwiches are insoluble in gasoline.
......written on the wall of the Methodist Student Union at The U. of Kansas, 1969

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 12:12 AM

While I love to see these discussions on here, it bothers me that there seems to be an assumption that we may desire an apology or even see the need for one. I do not believe Praise meant it as proselytising, but that is a bit of what it feels like. That is just my opinion and I am not in anyway saying it shouldn't be on here.

Also, while I know that Praise is not espousing empty rhetoric, cynicism does rear its head when one hears of these kinds of beating of breasts, esp. in light of the Pope's apology this past year. Sure, he apologised, but did he do anything to stop the hatred, bigotry, and oppression of women, homosexuals, etc? Did he tell parents of gay men who've been ostracised by them and the Church to open their hearts and homes to their children? Did he tell 3rd world women to use more reliable birth control to save themselves and their families from starvation? Too many times, it is the women first who are controlled and directed by religion, even as the extremists of Islam are doing in the Middle East. So, I am cynical about such things in general but not on an individual basis.

I recognise that I have a high degree of cynicism when it comes to religion, esp. Christianity, even though my sister is a minister of a metaphysical Christian church and a great many of my dear friends are Christian.

It is understandable that now, in the past few decades when the real horrors that have been and, in some cases still are being perpetrated in the name of Christ, are being exposed and told, non-Falwell Christians are hyper-sensitive to criticism. I see some of the Falwell/Robertson type rhetoric as the death throes of the Piscean Age, which was meant to be very patriarchal. In the Aquarian Age, we are meant to come to a balancing in the world so that there is equality and cooperation between all peoples, no matter their gender, IMO.

In American, especially, I would say to you, my Mudcat friends who are Christians...if Falwell and Robertson and their ilk do not represent your type of Christianity, then please speak up, vote, get everyone you know to vote, take back your religion from the zealots and bigots and get them out of politics.

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 12:23 AM

Bill, I don't think there is such thing as freedom from religion (or belief system). The reason I make this point is that the freedom from religion arguement tends to be used by athiests to inflict their belief systems on others.

Freedom of religion/ belief system is something I can agree with.

Jon

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 12:26 AM

Must correct one of my errors there: I meant to say freedom of choce of religion/ belief system.

Jon

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 12:50 AM

Jon, I guess my point is, I do have a set of 'beliefs' of sorts, but I don't go 'round knocking on the doors of Jehovah's Witnesses trying to make them see the error of their ways.(I also get Mormons here, being right near the temple....)....

The thing about religion is, one says "I believe in so & so" with 'believe', not 'know', being the operative word. Therefore, if 4,987,521,614 people believe one way, and one person believes another, he could be the one who is right...or both could be wrong! But it WOULD be wrong for the 4,987,521,614 to nag the one guy to change his mind, or expect him to bow his head for their prayers. In some things majority does NOT rule --nor might make right.

I have seen some VERY strange religious beliefs** in my time, but nothing I say is likely to change their minds, so why bother? If asked directly, I will tell you my views of the "meaning of life", and we may even have a nice discussion, but I will seldom bring up the subject, as it only leads to threads such as this...*sigh*

**(the lady who was sort of cross between a Jain and a Buddist, and would not squash a bug for fear of MUCH karma...so she threw them out in the snow, saying "what God does with them out there is none of my business)

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: John Hindsill
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 01:01 AM

I wonder why folks [most often Christians] feel the need to apologize for for the actions of their group, although they themselves did not perpetrate those actions. While well meaning, such an apology is self-serving; one seeks to personally rehabilitate their group, deserved or not. And it would be presumptuous for another to accept such an apology, unless s/he is an aggrieved party.

The rules for apology and forgiveness are simple: only the perpetrator can apologize; only the direct victim can forgive on this earth, and God in the hereafter.

I only apologize for my hurtful actions; I don't speak for men, white men, Americans, my co-religionists, or family members. I don't forgive Christians, Arabs, Jews, Nazis, racists nor mass murderers (as a group)...but I would forgive You for a wrong done to Me if you apologize for Your personal action.

If you feel that you can actually right a wrong, that is the best apology you can make for your group.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Terry K
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 02:29 AM

John H - it's the nature of these overt Christians to seek opportunities to show you just how bloody righteous they are.

Whenever I see one of those fish-like signs they wear I get a wave of depression come over me.

Terry

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Bagpuss
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 07:13 AM

We only see what we expect to see. Moonchild saw a post about Christianity, and therefore it must be patronising and pros (that other word that i forget how to spell) - because that seems to be her view of christianity.

Praise seemed well intentioned to me, but maybe thats because I am christian (of a sort).

I don't shove my religion down anyone's throat, and I believe in everyones right to have their own beliefs. In fact I believe that most religions are different reflections and manifestations of one god. The differences are, to me, in emphasis, and of course, the bits us humans have ballsed up in different ways.

It may be a funny perspective, but I don't believe in anything because Jesus said it. I believe in it because it seems right to me - and that is why Jesus said it. That way I don't fall into the trap of dogmatic beliefs, and believing in something just cos the pope or whoever said so.

Anyway, I also post in a movie discussion site, and we haven't discussed movies for ages!

Moonchild, when are you going to post in the thread about interesting deformities, and tell them how inappropriate that is?...

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Sailor Dan
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 07:45 AM

Bagpuss

I agree with most of what you said in the above post. You were doing fine ----UNTIL--you reached the last line.

I am a Roman Catholic, and I do not agree with moonchilds post, I think she is in error, but thats her opinion and she is most entitled to have her opinion, BUT YOUR REMARK AT THE END OF YOUR POST IS MOST INAPPROPRIATE AND YOU SHOULD POST A PUBLIC APOLIGY TO MOONCHILD ON THIS THREAD FOR THAT KIND OF REMARK. I TOOK OFFENSE AT IT. Those kind of remarks are not necessary in any thread.Be Christian and above all be a thinker and tolerant not a flammer. We have enough crap in this world. Let the mudcat be a place with tolerance.

Sailor Dan

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: GUEST,Mark Cohen (another late night at the hospit
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 08:09 AM

Aine, I apologize for my unclear statement. I understand why you interpreted it the way you did. I did not mean to imply that Christians have not been persecuted, in fact I said "there's no denying that Christians and others have been persecuted." What I'm not so sure about is Mbo's statement (which I have heard elsewhere and was even going to quote) that Christians outnumber any other group of victims of persecution -- but I really don't think keeping score like that is very helpful anyway, and it can be hurtful.

On the other hand, denying that such events occur is even more hurtful; those who deny the horrors of the Nazis come very much to mind. I'm sorry that my careless wording made me sound like one of them. You were right to call me on it, and I assure you that was not at all my intent. Whew, this is tricky stuff! Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Bagpuss
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 08:10 AM

PUBLIC APOLOGY TO MOONCHILD AND SAILOR DAN!!

Dan, I don't know you, so I can't tell whether that was serious or a joke. Just for the record, the last line was a joke.

I get down on my knees and beg forgiveness from whosoever I may have offended. I am humble in your sight.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Áine
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 08:32 AM

Dear Mark,

Oh dear, I'm sorry if I made it seem like I was calling you on your statements. I was merely musing on Mbo's and your own comments. Those two terrible situations involving persecution of Christians just popped into my head; probably, because I had heard and/or read about in the few days. I'm not usually that johnny-on-the-spot with historical quotes.

I hope you got some sleep last night -- in fact, quit reading this and go get some more! *BG*

-- Áine

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: harpgirl
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 08:54 AM

oh goody, a fight!!!! mjm...you have been posting since Aopril and I don't see your real name. But you certainly are a bible thumper!!!

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 09:13 AM

Nathan is that you posting under your mom's name?

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: harpgirl
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 09:22 AM

..it really is lambent harp, klf and my wager was real, as well, but don't tell anyone else about it until you give up and we discuss the answer...hg ( no fair using superior tech guys)...

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From:
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 09:23 AM

kat ... you should know better than that. harpgirl has no problem and is not afraid to render her opinion. In addition, her son, Nathan, is very well-mannered. As a matter of fact, that didn't even sound like you ... is that Rog posting under your name? ...moonchild

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: harpgirl
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 09:27 AM

...interesting remarks, by the way klf...

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Willie-O
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 09:29 AM

I don't know that I want to get into this, but it's been bugging me for quite a while. What gets under my skin is people that just can't seem to entertain any kind of conversation without bringing their religion into it, usually but not always linked with the concept of "moral values". You may think this is just an expression of who you are, but obviously you have no idea how aggravating and EXCLUSIVE it comes across to someone like me who is a committed atheist with a very definite set of ethics that I try to adhere to without supernatural influence.

What I like to see is less talk and more walk. Instead of bragging--that's how it comes across, Praise, and I think that's what causes persons such as harpgirl and me to react negatively--about your willingness to humble yourself.

There's a situation in Canada right now where a number of the mainline Christian denominations are facing hundreds of lawsuits for terrible abuses in residential schools which aboriginal children were forced to attend as part of a government plan to wipe out their culture and assimilate them. The "Christians" who ran these schools used or tolerated physical, sexual and psychological abuse extensively. There is extensive evidence that these activities were widespread. The native students were there under coercion in the first place--many were literally legally kidnapped from their families.

Now that this shameful history--shameful to all of us, because the residential schools were a key part of official government policy of assimilation--is out in the open, the churches say they are in danger of bankruptcy due to the number of claims against them. While there are many ongoing efforts at healing from within the Christian community, the mainline churches have recently hired major public relations guns to spin public opinion towards getting them some immunity or limited liability for the legal claims they are facing, and they have had some early success getting sympathetic news coverage. For the last couple of years, the various leaders of the denominations have been staging various very public semi-apologies--(most of them sort of hedged) now they are making it clear that there are limits to their repentance.

Christians the most persecuted? Yeah, right. Tell it to a residential school survivor. Tell it to a Moslem family in Kosovo. Bogus statistics, any PR firm can cook up. It's not a fit subject for quantification.

Sorry, that's the way I feel.

Willie-O

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: harpgirl
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 09:37 AM

...Bill your remark about the Buddhist lady gave me the first belly laugh of the day! Celebrate life! premies unite!

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: harpgirl
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 09:39 AM

...Art, I started the Ruby Pickens Tartt folk song collection thread for you!!!!

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Bagpuss
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 09:40 AM

Willie-O

It only seems like religious people bring their religion into everything, but maybe thats because they are the only ones you hear. The ones who keep quiet - well you might not even know they are Christian. Certainly most people I know dont know I am religious. I only brought it up in this thread because it was relevant.

Bagpuss (gives a big yawn...)

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Willie-O
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 09:52 AM

Well, Bagpuss, that's my point exactly, I think. If people could express the values in their hearts without feeling the need to hoist the big "C" flag every time, it would set a lot easier with me. Because then you're living by example, and are demonstrably not proselytizing which completely turns me off. (In this thread, of course, it is relevant to identify your own religious belief system if you choose to do so.)

...and if you happen to come by your values via a personal relationship with God, God will know about that already, and I don't need to.

W-O

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: flattop
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 09:57 AM

I'd like to apoligize to anyone who hasn't been offended by this thread. Sorry if we made you feel left out.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 10:01 AM

Willie-O. I have frequently encountered people bringing ideas of no God or other things into oppossition to my faith and have stated my Christian view. The sad part of it that a number of athiests have then accused me of bringing religion into the conversation when it was their (anti) religious views that prompted it.

Also, there are some topics eg. the ghost thread which although many people I know can not see this, are so much part of a persons belief system that I feel in neccessary and correct to state my view point from my own Christian set of beliefs.

As I general rule, I try to leave religion out of general conversation but if people start treading on my "religious toes", I respond, hopefully politely and reasonably but as a Christain.

Jon

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Willie-O
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 10:03 AM

Laughing my ass off, Flattop, but for _them_, I AIN"T SORRY! There just isn't enough sorry left to go around.

Sorry about that.

W-O

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Bagpuss
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 10:05 AM

I personally think that if there is a god, then he doesn't give two hoots what we believe in, or whether we believe in anything at all. What matters is how we treat other people. If a religion helps a person to treat others well then its a good thing - if they use it to treat others badly then its a bad thing.

Bagpuss (settles down to sleep)

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 10:15 AM

I will have to go back and read every word carefully, I think this is an excellent thread. And I admire Praise for posting it. If moonchild (whom I admire also) minds so much, I recommend not reading it any more. But I'm going to chime in now about a few things:

1) Fanatics always give their cause a bad name.
2) Nobody is responsible, or should be held so, for the actions of their ancestors/predecessors. However, that does not detract from how nice it is for Praise to apologize for hers. 3) There was a great map a few months ago in Time or Newsweek, showing warfare all over the world with columns for how many dead. I'd post a reprint if I could find one. ALL OF THESE TOWERS represented some kind of religious conflict except the Hutus and the Tutsis (the map predated Kosovo, not a religious conflict either). Very few of them involved Christians. But if you read Reader's Digest, or other Western less-newsy more-fun periodicals, there are always articles about how persecuted Christians are. However, sorry Mbo and others, Christians are not the current target of much ORGANIZED (by governments) warfare, the way Jews and Moslems are. Examples: Bosnia (Christians against Moslems); The Middle East (Moslems and Jews against each other); Kosovo (Christians against other Christians, so yes the vics were Christian but it isn't a religious persecution as so were the perps).
4) I do not consider that I have personally suffered much from religious intolerance. Sure, I find it incredibly annoying, and where I currently live rather inescapable (Christians against anyone else her in the Old Dominion), but it wasn't ME who suffered through (or didn't manage to suffer all the way through) the Holocaust, it was my mother's Jewish family. It wasn't ME who was made into a guinea-pig for medical experiments by a government supposedly formed specifically to protect religious freedom but which, in fact, did not support conscientious objection to warfare on religious grounds, it was my Quaker father.

Anyway, I'll go back when I have more time and read this thread more thoroughly. Then I'll post again, with more thought. But I agree that this forum should be musicians discussing what interests them, which is often but not exclusively music.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Willie-O
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 10:17 AM

Jon, buddy, that's pretty much what I was saying, from the flip side of my own belief system. I understand how it could rile you when people make presumptive remarks critical of your faith without recognizing that you are likely to take it personally. (It's pretty naive to make such remarks without recognizing that there might be a rebuttal, but C's and non-C's alike are frequently taken aback when they get one.)

Just don't accuse me of "moral relativism" and we'll get along fine...

W-O

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 10:27 AM

Flattop. Greatly appreciate your apology. Nothing here offended me but the spelling. I AM sorry for stabbing George Harrison though.

Rick

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Mbo
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 10:32 AM

And on that note, why not sing "My Sweet Lord" by George Harrison? I don't think I know of a better religion-spanning song as that!

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 10:43 AM

Don't let "The Chiffons" hear that Mbo!

Rick

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 10:50 AM

First of all, I would like to commend Banjo Johnny who though a guest has captured something in a phrase that I have enjoyed about the Mudcat since I discovered it last December. Some threads are about music, others are "discussion(s) among musicians". Unless you believe that you can have music that is value free, or morality neutral, I would suggest that any discussion related to understanding other's values and view point is relevant to making better music.
About the subject raised by Praise:
I can understand the need among some people to apologize for the actions of groups with which they are affiliated. That is why I do not affiliate easily. I think it is also good to point out that "Christianity" is not monolithic; there are factions of all sorts within all religious organizations. It's good to hear that there are Christians who are aware that their beliefs do not place them above criticism or beyond need for improvement.
My problem with Christianity, and with all institutionalized religions for that matter, is dogma. Here in Chicago, the Catholic establishment has long been noted for being slightly out of step with Rome. But no matter how far from the "party line" the Chicago clergy strays, there are defined limits that they cannot cross without leaving the church. Those lines are drawn in Catholic dogma, and unless unthinkable changes are made to the dogma, women will always be second class, the sexual nature of mankind will always be repressed, and the world will always be divided between those who accept and those who reject the teachings of the church. Religious dogma is not always rooted in the teachings of the founder; it most often is a result of the need to institutionalize the religion as it grows. Whenever anything is institutionalized, there is a risk that the core or essence of it will be lost. If youdon't believe that, just look at rock and roll. As religious movements grow into organized, institutionalized sects, choices are inevitably made that are designed to further the institution only, rather than deepen the belief. The traditional western religions spend much too much time defending their turf, IMHO. Where is Christ in all this? I'm damned if I know. Literally.
I think a lot of non-Christians, as someone pointed out, do object to the "in your face" quality of some Christians. But they have to remember that Christianity is an apostolic belief - Christians have a mandate, at the cost of their soul, to spread the word. If I believed that my eternal soul was at risk, I'd take that pretty seriously. Unfortunately, some people see that mandate as being mutually exclusive with tolerance of other's beliefs. And that's the rub.
At any rate, I hope I haven't offended anyone's beliefs in my post. That was never my intent. Praise, I appreciate your apology for the spirit in which it is offered. But no one who sincerely adheres to the tenets of their belief system should ever feel the need to apologize.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: GUEST,f13train
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 10:53 AM

I've just finsished reading the entire thread and all the replies entered. It upsets me that people will become angry and soemtimes hostile regarding anothers faith. I personally have no organized faith. Religion is something for open discussion. To sit and listen to the various beliefs in our country, who by the way gives us the right to worship the way we chose, is not only interesting but informative as well. To say religion has no bearing on music is really stretching it. Some of the music that has endured not only from our own country but others as well was based on the religious hymns of the time. It makes no difference where the music came from. Music is music. As a child I noted others fighting literally beating each other to a pulp over their different faiths. No discussion just punching. Has an open forum like Mudcats Cafe become a battle ground. Lets view each others comments with the respect in which they are written and maybe not beleive but to get a better understanding of our fellow humans.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 11:01 AM

Praise came to this group, which includes a fair number of nonconformists, lefties, anti-establishmentarians, all the way from the old left to the new age, completely open about who she was,a Christian, and pastor's wife, complete with her autoharp, prayers, and positive attitude.

While she was welcomed by most people, there have been a few who have not quite been comfortable with her, and with the other Christians who had been here all along, but had not really said anything to give it away, til she came along. There have been many veiled and not so veiled comments, which I will not go into here, but some people have been thoughtful enough to resurect and re-post many them in this thread, for easy reference, I suppose, if you are curious.

After a while, these things get to a person, and Praise, being a person, has responded, and in a very magnamimous way. Some of the people who are giving her a hard time here ought to know better, since they have experienced some of same sort of slings and arrows. Others of the people giving her hard time are more noted for casting slings and arrows in other threads.

For the people who feel that they have reason to vent here, remember that this thread isn't really about Praise, it is about the way that some people have reacted to her, and there is an adage, "Judge not..." though I forget the rest of it--

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: SINSULL
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 11:43 AM

Re: flattop's I'd like to apoligize to anyone who hasn't been offended by this thread. Sorry if we made you feel left out.

I accept your apology.
I am an atheist. I respect others' beliefs. I admire those willing to to stand up for their beliefs.

I abhor anyone who dares to commit crimes against others in the name of their "God".

Praise is a very brave and admirable lady (I hope she's female. I've already had to apologize for that mistake) not just for posting this thread but for declaring her Christianity without fear of ridicule, criticism, etc. at a time when it is not popular. I have never felt that she is on a recruitment drive or shoving her beliefs down my throat. She celebrates her faith as I celebrate life.
Although I understand her reason for apologizing, I have to say that she of all people does not owe this particular apology.

Praise, play your music, sing your songs, and continue inspiring us all.

SS

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: GUEST,Andy Green
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 11:49 AM

I agree with moonchild instinctivley, but on reflection I believe that the intention of praise was good. I believe in Karma. I dislike the crutch that most religions have become (IMHO)
Heated debates on subjects like this can for some people be dangerous. Those who are not tolerant of others beliefs can get swept away by so called righteousness. I dont want to see that happen here.
On a personal note, and apologies from Praise are not needed, I worked for a christian community and have never found a bigger set of hypocrites in all my life

yours in friendship

Andy

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: harpgirl
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 11:58 AM

...a heck...the best war is the war between the sexes...now that's a cause worth fighting for!!! Women unite! Men have more and better access to technology and they know more guitar chords!! Unfair, I say!!

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: The_one_and_only_Dai
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 12:03 PM

Amergin:

I think you'll find that our God is precisely the same one as everybody else's. It's just the spin doctors who make you think they're not the same.

BB bagahe.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Mbo
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 12:11 PM

Raghupahti raghava raja ram?

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Bert
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 12:19 PM

Harpgirl, They know more guitar chords? I don't agree with that, I only know A, E7 & D!

Bert.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Áine
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 12:26 PM

I find it interesting that one of my favorite columnists, Molly Ivins, had as her column for the 27th a discussion of "The Fundamentals of Entrenchment." (Click here for full column). She was discussing fundamentalism of all sorts, beginning with ". . . a Muslim religious seminary in Pakistan that is deeply influenced by the Taliban of Afghanistan . . ." and the students of this seminary who considered Osama bin Laden a great hero who they would like to see armed with atomic weapons. Ms. Ivins writes:

"It is difficult to have a discussion with someone who believes all truth resides in the Bible, the Koran, or for that matter, Karl Marx, Ayn Rand or Dianetics." . . . "Jacques Barzun's new book, a brisk gallop through 500 years of Western civilization called "From Dawn to Decadence," points out an interesting feature of history: ideas dont' appear and then disappear over time -- the same ideas reappear in new manifestations over and over. The appeal of certainty and Authority is timeless." . . . "Since people allegedly relying on the Word of God have come to some truly appalling conclusions over the centuries, it seems to me necessary to at least keep the discussions going to keep our brains limber. The problem with those who choose received Authority over fact and logic is how they choose which part of Authority to obey. The Bible famously contradicts itself at many points . . . and the Koran can be read as a wonderfully compassionate and humanistic document. Which suggests that the problem of fundamentalism lies not with authority, but with ourselves."

-- Áine

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 12:34 PM

Bartholomew, I agree with the spread the word principle but I doubt that many of us speak to anybody who is not already aware of the word. It is my belief that if somebody is goining to convert to Christianity, it ultimately has to be their descision and constantly ramming Christianity down the throats of those who already are aware of Christianity but have a different set of beliefs creates hostility and if anything is more likely to be a hinderance to gaining "converts" than a help.

Jon

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 01:01 PM

Discussions like this get me really nervous, so I often resist the temptation to join in. I've been a Roman Catholic Christian all my life, and I've got a degree in Theology, and I work in the church four or five days a week. I guess people could fairly conclude that I'm a Christian.
If I call myself a Christian, does that mean I'm required to be considered on a par with Jerry Falwell and Oral Roberts and the Ku Klux Klan and the Inquisition? Heck, I don't even agree with the Pope a lot of the time, even though I do think he has some good points. If I call myself a Christian, does that mean that I can't think my own thoughts and that I'm required to believe what somebody else expects me to believe? If I call myself a Christian, does that mean that I believe exactly what Praise believes (even though I love her dearly, poor misguided soul that she is)?
Things get really complicated when you put a big bunch of different people into the same class, and then expect them to be the same. Every person is different, and every person has the right to be considered as an individual.
This apology thing makes me nervous, too. Although I'm a Christian, I find it difficult to apologize sincerely for the actions of Jerry Falwell and Oral Roberts and the Ku Klux Klan and the Inquisition, and the Pope. Most of the time, I've had much more in common with the victims of the evil done in the name of Christianity. How can I apologize for something I've never agreed with in the first place?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From:
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 01:13 PM

At no time, in any of my posts on this thread, did I express an intolerance of Christianity, or any other religious or belief system. I did not say that all Christians were patronizing or proselytizing. I said that this thread, started by Praise, was inappropriate, patronizing, and proselytizing. I choose my friends very, very carefully and they come from all walks of life and beliefs. Since I have no problem expressing myself, I would ask that no one else put words in my mouth ... moonchild

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 01:27 PM

Bert, put your middle finger on the fifth string, 2nd fret, and your ring finger on the fourth string 2nd fret. Now you know FOUR chords! Hope that helps your argument.

By the way, Rex Humbard, one of the early TV faith healers, and money changers (he changed it from their hands to his) was a great old time singer and guitar player. He played a silver steel National in Jummie Rogers style and looked great in the photos.

Carry on the debate.

Rick

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: harpgirl
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 01:41 PM

...oh yeah, Rick. Wasn't he the one that said "Throw your money against the wall, If it sticks it's yours, if it falls it's the lords!"

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Mbo
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 01:45 PM

Well said, Joe. I agree completely.

--Mbo

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 01:48 PM

T'ain't the "folks", it's the "leaders". Always has been, and always will. Since there will always be ambitious and articulate power-hungry fanatics in every religious movement, there'll always be good people apologising for their behaviour.

Not enough will listen though....the "leaders" make sure of that.

Rick

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Sean Belt
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 01:54 PM

I really don't get this whole discussion. There was really nothing particularly offensive that I can see in Praise's original post. Kind of silly and certainly unnecessary but not offensive. As far as I know, Praise, you've never once oppressed me. And as far as changing mother church's political and human views -- Good luck! we can't even get the contributors to this forum to agree on much. Getting millions of Christians in hundreds of denominations to agree that treating women, or Irish, or blacks, or Moslems, etc., etc. is a bad idea seems like it is waaay beyond do-able.

Moonchild, I'll defend your right to be prickly and upset about this until my dying breath. But, I just don't think it's worth getting one's knickers in a twist over.

Now. Everyone take a deep breath, pick up an instrument close at hand (you without, feel free to hum) and play a few rounds of "June Appal". You'll feel better, I guarantee, and the worls will indeed be a slightley better place for it.

Bread & roses,
- Sean

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Sean Belt
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 01:56 PM

It won't, however, help my spelling at all. Yeesh!

- Sean

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Áine
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 02:07 PM

Dear Sean R-B,

You took the words right out of my mouth! Thanks!

And after we finish "June Appal", let's all join in for a few rounds of "Kumbaya":

Kumbaya, my (name of your personal diety or your own name), Kumbaya
Kumbaya, my (name of your personal diety or your own name), Kumbaya
Kumbaya, my (name of your personal diety or your own name), Kumbaya
Oh (name of your personal diety or your own name), Kumbaya.

I just knew we could work this out!

-- Áine

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: dwditty
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 02:14 PM

Oh, if only we could live up to the words of Rodney King. "Can't we all just get along?"

Now we can take this discussion in a whole 'nother direction, eh?

dw

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: dwditty
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 02:15 PM

Oh, if only we could live up to the words of Rodney King. "Can't we all just get along?"

Now we can take this discussion in a whole 'nother direction, eh?

dw

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Bert
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 02:17 PM

Kumbaya, my beer, Kumbaya

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 02:18 PM

Oh, I'd like to add one thing: Praise isn't always misguided. When she agrees with me, I think she's brilliant.
<grin>
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: SDShad
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 02:18 PM

But Áine, what will our atheist brethren and sistren insert there? Kumbaya, my [silence], kumbaya just doesn't work.

Chris

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Áine
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 02:23 PM

Dear Chris,

Oh dear - I thought I'd provided for those folks with the option of "your own name", but now I realize how it could have been misunderstood since it followed "name of your personal diety". Dang it! Well, we could always follow dear Bert's advice and go with "beer".

-- Áine

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Bert
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 02:23 PM

I just did that one for you SD.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Bagpuss
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 02:25 PM

Well I'm a woman, and I know almost an infinite number of chords.

Most of em sound awful, but I know em anyway!!!

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: SDShad
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 02:38 PM

Or, dear Áine, it could just be that I need to read more carefully.

I do like Bert's suggestion, though. I can see the "Kumbaya, My Guinness" posters now....

Shad

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: flattop
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 02:42 PM

We can't blame the Christians for the Harrison stabbing Ricky? Ambrose Bierce expressed similar feelings towards religious leaders in his Devil's Dictionary, written around 1900.

INFIDEL, n. In New York, one who does not believe in the Christian religion; in Constantinople, one who does. See GIAOUR.) A kind of scoundrel imperfectly reverent of, and niggardly contributory to, divines, ecclesiastics, popes, parsons, canons, monks, mollahs, voodoos, presbyters, hierophants, prelates, obeah-men, abbes, nuns, missionaries, exhorters, deacons, friars, hadjis, high-priests, muezzins, brahmins, medicine-men, confessors, eminences, elders, primates, prebendaries, pilgrims, prophets, imaums, beneficiaries, clerks, vicars-choral, archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, preachers, padres, abbotesses, caloyers, palmers, curates, patriarchs, bonezs, santons, beadsmen, canonesses, residentiaries, diocesans, deans, subdeans, rural deans, abdals, charm-sellers, archdeacons, hierarchs, class-leaders, incumbents, capitulars, sheiks, talapoins, postulants, scribes, gooroos, precentors, beadles, akeers, sextons, reverences, revivalists, cenobites, perpetual curates, chaplains, mudjoes, readers, novices, vicars, pastors, rabbis, ulemas, lamas, sacristans, vergers, dervises, lectors, church wardens, cardinals, prioresses, suffragans, acolytes, rectors, cures, sophis, mutifs and pumpums.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: canoer
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 02:43 PM

I know it's gone on too long already but --- apologies to the offended –

I have the same core reaction to the "Apology" as Moonchild although I wouldn't phrase it so harshly.

I'd like to suggest that religion has no utility when it comes to big issues. For example, the mainline chruches and religions of every nation blessed their own nation's efforts in WWII. How can one expect consistent moral guidance when there can be a mess like that? There were a range of minority responses, such as pacifism, to the war, and all of them were participated in by members of all faiths.

Religions are not reliable guides to the "big questions." They are, however, reliable guides as to who wants to manipulate whom, in whose service.

By that I mean, for example, the faithful in Germany were manipulated by their relieious leaders to serve the secular leaders. The faithful in England were manipulated by their religious leaders to serve the secular leaders. The faithful in American were ….

This is the most reliable pattern in the history of religions.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 02:46 PM

Moonchild - People always put words in other people's mouths. They hear what they think they hear, read between the lines and add their own interpretations regardless of what the actual words were. You read Praise's words and heard proselytizing, etc. Perhaps this is based on history that many of us who are new here don't know. You are a plain speaker, but once something is said the speaker has little or no control over what people think was meant.

John Freeman - thank you, sir, for reading my post and for the comment. I agree with what you said, but I would like to clarify what I meant. My point was that when certain religions compel their members to go out to preach, some believe it's the preaching that matters, not the success. Whether the result is a conversion or total revulsion doesn't matter - preaching fulfills the mandate. Your soul is saved. I am not supporting that kind of approach to religion or to preaching, I am just trying to point out the problem. My question is, if you believe that your soul is at stake if you remain silent, should the possibility that you might piss someone off matter?

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Songster Bob
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 02:47 PM

The "zipper" song version of "Kumbaya," which fell afoul of inclusiveness by using the word "diety," made me think of an "insert diety or substitute here" wording, which in turn reminded me of the joke I heard the other day:

They have new, low-calory wafers for use in communion now. The leading brand is "I Can't Believe It's Not Christ."

Bob Clayton

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Crowhugger
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 02:56 PM

I'm happy if the churches and state are separate. I'm happy to inform door-to-door religious folk that they're trespassing. I'm happy my best friend is Catholic. Other marvellous people in my life pay various amounts of attention to their various religions. Best of all, my true friends accept that my garden requires that I act upon some of the most fundamental truths: plant enough for everyone; give them space to grow; harvest as much or as little as you need; allow the rest to be eaten by bugs and groundhogs or be returned in due course to the earth. Above all, sing and dance the best way I know how.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Áine
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 02:59 PM

Dear Songster Bob,

Brilliant! I love it! Works for me:

Kumbaya, my zipper, Kumbaya,
Kumbaya, my zipper, Kumbaya,

Yep, now that's a snappy version!

-- Áine

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: flattop
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 03:18 PM

Why have we been so harsh on Jerry Faldwell? Isn't he Jerry Lee Lewis's cousin? Aren't we musical soulmates? Didn't Faldwell apologize too? I know that it must be hard to keep your nose in Deuteronomy while cousin Jerry Lee keeps hammering his Great Balls of Fire on the piano. Is it fair to judge preachers, who we never had any intention of believing, by a higher standard than the women we only dream of going to bed with? Could this be the moral dilemma of the day? Please? Didn't I dangle a participle?

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: flattop
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 03:35 PM

Trespassing, Crowhugger? I'm suprised and disappointed. Didn't you realize that most door to door religious folk have a repertoire of nasal or guttural tunes that go well with bowed instruments - if only you'd invite them in. I have invited Jehovah Witnesses in, even bought their magazines (for a small donation), only to have them tell me after a brief visit, 'Do you mind if we leave? We have other houses to go to.' Go figure?

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Sean Belt
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 03:45 PM

Flattop, old shoe, (any relation to the old Dick Tracy villain?) Jerry Falwell is not Jerry Lee's cousin. That's another one of those televangelists. I can't think of his name right now, but he was the one caught consorting with "felthy hooers" (sic) in the Baton Rouge, Louisianna area a decade or so ago. He cried his eyes out and begged forgiveness, and was never as popular again.

Jerry Falwell, on the other hand, is the great galumphing embarrassment who's been so involved in right-wing reactionary politics here in the USA in the last couple of decades. He's no soulmate of mine, thanks.

Now, Aimee Semple McPherson, on the other hand...

Bread & roses, - Sean

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: IvanB
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 03:48 PM

Like Willie-O, I am a committed atheist, with perhaps one difference - I'm not particularly offended by anyone's voicing his/her belief system unless that person's behavior belies his/her words. This said, not having any knowledge of Praise which would seem to contradict the words with which she started this, I must take her statement on face value.

On the other hand, I've been disturbed lately by the number of posts to various threads which attack individuals for their positions. I believe these sorts of comments have no place on a public forum, but should be sent as a personal message to the individual involved. Granted, if the post which offends is done by a nonmember, a personal message is impossible, but such is not the case for this thread or for a number of others in which I've noted personal attacks made publicly.

Come on, folks, this is a community and, as in any other community, some common-sense rules of behavior are necessary. What possible reason can there be for attacking an individual publicly other than implicitly declaring one's own self-righteousness? Let's think before we post: "Is this something that needs to be said to the community as a whole, or is it a private matter that should be dealt with in a personal message?" If so, act accordingly.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Mbo
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 03:50 PM

Jerry Lee Lewis' cousin was Jimmy Swaggert.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Gary T
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 03:57 PM

I cracked up when I heard the comedian Gallagher (sp?) say, "When are clergy like Jerry Falwell going to realize that they have to do more than lay people?"

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 04:04 PM

I must admit Flattop, that I also enjoy the visits of the door to door religious folks. I offer them drinks (they pass on Champagne most of the time--but will often take soda or plain old, boring, water) and admire their fortitude(it isn't easy having doors slammed in your face, all day long).

Generally, I have to gently explain that I am not really looking for a church to belong to, and would be disinclined to watch a video tape, but, having grown up in a country filled with salesmen of all types, I long ago learned how to say "no" in a clear, but non-confrontatory way. I also learned, long ago, how to be congenial with people who had different political, religious, econonmic, sexual, culinary, tonsorial, and sartorial preferences than my own.

At any rate, I always get a laugh when I explain that a lot of people think that my religious views are crazy, I introduce them to Harvey, and invite them back, though I never see any of them again.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: SDShad
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 04:13 PM

Okay, so I threw in a smart-ass post or two on this one, but this is in fact an issue on which I have some fairly strong feelings. Admittedly after 100-some posts, my two cents is probably equivalent to beating a dead horse after the barn door has been closed, and whatever other two-bit metaphors I can come up with. But I didn't want to let it pass without at least a bit of comment.

Because even if I put on my "atheist cap," the one I wear when I'm skeptical even though admittedly I'm a spiritual believer (I feel obliged to wear it when pondering cosmology and the origins of the human species, among other things, just to keep me honest), I see nothing in Praise's post that is pandering, proselytizing, preaching, patronizing, oppressing, flag-waving, folding, spindling, mutilitating, sneezing, wheezing, grumpy, or any of the other handful of accusations that have been made towards it. I see her post as one that is honest and courageous, at an ethical gut level, and I think I would still feel so if I held no spiritual beliefs at all.

Whether you are Christian or not, religious or atheist, devout or "lapsed," reverent or iconoclastic, reflect for a moment on the truths, ethical or moral principles, and lofty ideals of kindness and respect that you hold dear, whatever their foundation, be it religious, philosopical, logical, or just plain personal "gut instinct." We all have, I think, that ineffible core that tells us what's decent in how to act towards others. Focus on that secret anchor in your own self, divorced completely from worldly (or otherworldly) dogma and doctrine.

Now imagine people perpetrating great harm, hatred, wounding, and atrocity, all the while claiming to be doing it in the very name of the principles you hold dear. Remember, this is your secret anchor. You know that your principles aren't the cause of atrocity, because you try to live by those principles every day, and you don't commit those harms. These people sound like you part of the time, except when they start twisting the meaning of those principles around to justify their meanness and hatred. Somewhere along the line, they just got it wrong, and you don't know if you can do a bloody damned thing to set it right. Fairly or unfairly, this is the face in which the world sees people who believe as you believe. Maybe you have never and will never encounter such a scenario in real life, but come along on the gedanken experiment with me just a moment longer: a moment to take into your hands and hold on to the deep frustration and pain such a realization might cause in you.

And in that last moment of indulging my imaginary scenario, realize that that is what I believe Praise was trying to deal with in creating this thread. She wasn't preaching at us about how Jesus Saves, she wasn't trying to convert any of us to Christianity or to her particular flavor of it, she wasn't telling us that our mortal souls are in danger of brimstone, hellfire and Dalmatians if'n we don't straighten up and fly just her particular brand of right. She wasn't putting words in anyone's mouth, although several have put words in her mouth in this thread.

She was doing just what her post advertised: expressing deep personal regret for the harms, and they are many, that have been done (and are being done) in the name of, and by, the institution of Christainity. Please realize that they distress Christians of good conscience and intent at our very core, and that the destructive Christians are just as willing to level their witch-hunt mentality at their Christian critics as they are to level it at pagans, wiccans, atheists, gays, and everyone else on their long list of enemies. What to do about this very issue, and the difficulty it incurs in bearing honest, unharmful Christian witness, is, as Susan relates, something that is very much discussed in Christian circles these days. We are trying to exorcise these things from our own hearts, not sweep them under the rug, as some might have you believe.

And Susan expressed the desire to speak amends for these things far better than I think I can, so I won't add much more, except to say this: be careful what assumptions you make about me just because I publicly declare that I am a Christian. Don't assume that I'm out to "save your soul;" that's your business (and the Creator's, should you believe in one). Don't assume that all this talk of openness and tolerance are just a ruse to proselytize and lure you into our Big Cult; I'm not half that clever. Don't assume that I'm exclusive of all other spiritual beliefs, because I'm not--I find nearly as much (sometimes more) inspiration in the Tao te Ching, the Quran, the Divan i Shams, the Book of Certitude, the White Buffalo Calf Woman story, and a host of others, as I do in Christianity's Big Book o' Goofy Mythology. I identify primarily as Christian, but also practice the Dakota Sacred Pipe and Native American Church spiritual ways. In fact, I was baptised only last year, and my baptism was blessed with the appearance of some marvelous animal spirits: a bald eagle, a turtle, a blue heron.

In short, I am in a number of ways a very different sort of Christian, I suppose, from Praise. But not in one very important, perhaps the only important way: I adhere to the same Law of Love, and because of it, I concur in her apology. Our Big Book o' Goofy Mythology carries in it a very important admonition to Christians: the standard by which we measure others is the standard by which we ourselves will be measured. It's a principle of which the Fallwells of the world would be wise to take greater note. Call it karma, call it divine retribution, call it what you will, but it all means this: the strong reaction some have had to what they saw as Christian proselytizing in this thread only goes to show how deep the wounds are that Christianity has inflicted, and how mean the standard by which Christians have too often judged people, including their own.

I applaud Susan for her effort to mend one small section of that great tear, and am only left to wonder how it is that I, too, can help.

Chris

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: wysiwyg
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 04:20 PM

I deeply appreciate all of the information and viewpoints within the posts above.

IMNSHO, this has been a good and generally thoughtful, not flamish, discussion, and I am pleased to see that this can occur.

I will be glad to hear more on this if there is more anyone cares to say.

Joe Offer, you especially have gone and made me grin all over again.

~Susan

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 04:21 PM

Bartholomew, I am going to have to go a little further into Christianity than I had intended but here is my answer to your question. Other Christians may think differently.

The price of my sins was paid for by Jesus Christ when he was cucifed. All that is required to save my soul is to accept Jesus into my live and for him to be my saviour so the question of going round trying to save souls to ensure my salvarion does not exist.

I am however asked to try to do certain things such as love my nieghbour and I do believe that I should try to do that even though I am already saved. As far as I am concerned with the spreading the word, I do make it known that I am a Christain but as explained peviously am meeting people who are already aware of Christianity, rather than pumping religion down peoples throats, I try to confine my religious conversation to situations that I believe are appropriate.

The only references in the New Testament where one could actually question the need to do something to ensure our salvation involves standing firm and confessing ones belief in Christ. This does not mean preaching to others but it means, for example, if somebody had a gun pointed at my head and said "I'll blow your brains out unless you say that Christ does not exist", I should stand firm and say Christ does exist, regardless of the consequences. This is not an easy one and I don't know how I would react in practice but large numbers of Christains have done just that and lost their lives, firmly believing that there is a place in heaven for them.

Jon

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Crowhugger
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 04:46 PM

P.S. apology accepted, flattop!

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 05:36 PM

Funny really, I have read pletny of comments that have provoked strong feeling in me but none that have offended me or have produced real anger.

Apart from the reaction from Moonchild and a couple of others which although I don't agree with are undertandable, overall, I think once again people in Mudcat have demonstrated a willingness and an ability to have a reasonable discussion on what is obviously a very personal and sensitive subject.

Jon

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 05:53 PM

Well spoken Jon. The only times that real nastiness has ever come out on Mudcat, the writer(s) used the cloak of anonymity. Pretty good group here.

Rick

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 06:07 PM

A secular humanist would sing Kumbaya, my friends, kumbaya, I think... they are my current favorite "organized" atheists...

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: GUEST,SDShad
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 06:18 PM

You don't have to be an atheist to sign on for that one, Mrrzy.

(A big, nondenominational) amen to that.

Chris

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Áine
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 06:28 PM

I dunno, Mrrzy -- Personally, I'm still partial to "kumbaya, my zipper, kumbaya" -- which, of course, I'd only sing in a group of dear friends (like all you Mudcatters!).

-- Áine

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: flattop
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 07:58 PM

You're right on Swaggert/Falwell, Sean and Mbo. And I was wrong. Still, should we be tough on Falwell for being human? I donno. Maybe he sings in the bathroom too. Maybe he's a Mudcatter under a different name. Why so much anger about him and a few other preachers?

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: GUEST,Barry Finn
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 08:00 PM

I'm still so sorry, so, so, so sorry
Please except my sincerity
I walked up hill & got nailed to a tree
Ow, ow, ow, ow, ow, ow, ow
You tell me don't hang there
That hanging out is no fun
But I was wrong & I can't right what's been done.

Barry, whose's funny bone just got so broken.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: wysiwyg
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 08:03 PM

Thanks also for the delightful and articulate personal messages... you know who you are.

~S~

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Amos
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 09:40 PM

Why would anyone want to identify themselves(I AM a ___) with a belief system, anyway? That's kinda like a cordon blue master chef going around calling himself a recipe!

A

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Callie
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 10:16 PM

Wow, what a thread!

Susan, while I would defend your right to express your views here, I'm not quite sure why you fell the need to express your religious views so often. Until this thread came up, I would have had no idea who put themselves in what categories of belief system BECAUSE NAMES AND LABELS TELL YOU NOTHING OF WHO A PERSON REALLY IS. I learn about people's attitudes and beliefs by how they act towards others, not by what they call themselves. I really couldn't give a hoot whether you're a Christian or Hare Krishna. I care that you have interesting things to say and are compassionate towards people.

I do not feel uncomfortable around religious or other zealous people when they wear their beliefs on their t-shirts (so to speak) as though one could define one's ethics and foundations by a few easy slogans. I wish people would keep their beliefs a bit more private and make their actions the public manifestations of their beliefs. But that's just me, and probably because I would find it difficult to express such thinigs succinctly.

Callie

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Sean Belt
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 10:39 PM

Flattop,

Why be so hard on the Rev. Falwell? Mostly because he uses his position as a very public figure to do individuals great harm. He is one of the foremost and most visible proponents of intolerance and religious/socio-economic snobbery on the American political scene. As well as being openly proud of his status as an anti-intellectual and what would have been called a "no-nothing" 100 years ago. AND he makes no secret of the fact that he makes a terrifically good living by soliciting large sums of money from those least able to part comfortably part with it. I honestly believe that he is a dangerous man and a threat to informed, diverse thought in the United States.

Sorry, I got all serious and indignant there for a minute. I meant every word of it, but I'll try not to let such outbursts happen too often. ;-)

Bread & roses,
-Sean

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: bob jr
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 10:49 PM

message to john freeman

sorry to tell you this sport but the historical accuracy of john 3:16 is according to serious biblical scholarship(not fundamentalist propaganda) is a big fat zero . if you read the synoptic gospels (mathew luke and mark)and compare them with john you find two very different pictures of Jesus but which one is accurate? well three to one for one tells you that the acitve decisive "i am the messiah" of john is way out of line with the meek and "dont be calling me the messiah" of mathew luke and mark plus the historically earlier gospel of thomas.....the good people of the Jesus seminar make compelling arguements as to why john is the least reliable gospel but i suggest you do your own research on it and before you start answering me back with fundamentalist rhetoeric i have my masters in theology so i know where you are gonna go ....but as one of my profs once told me "dont set sail in a boat if i cant stand up in rough water"

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: flattop
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 10:59 PM

If you feel strongly Sean, wouldn't the answer be for you to try to be a public figure who could counter act Falwell's harm rather than simply nipping at Falwell's arse in clubby little e-mails? I believe Mother Theresa's position is still open. Otherwise, as a non-believer, I feel we should extend as much Christian charity to irritating preachers as we expect for the rest of us sinners.

P.S. I was never a fan of Dick Tracy so I don't understand your reference. An explanation might help.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Mbo
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 11:03 PM

In the Dick Tracy cartoon, Flat Top was a villian with an almost square head. And really big eyes.

--Mbo

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 11:06 PM

bob jr, please tell me what John 3:16 says. I can't really be bothered to look it up.

Also, if you feel that your masters in theology gives you an insight as to how my mind works and what my resoponse may be, I can't help but question its validity.

Jon

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Áine
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 11:07 PM

Dear Jon and bob jr.,

I'd like to recommend a wonderful book to both of you by Robin Griffith-Jones, Master at the Temple Church in London, entitled The Four Witnesses, which examines the differing views of Christ from the individual aspects of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I think you both would enjoy it.

-- Áine

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Sorcha
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 11:20 PM

3:16 says, "love they neighbor as thyself". I really don't want to be in this thread at all, because I am too ambivilent about my own theology. But, I have enough religous instruction to know I cannot call myself a Christian anymore. There is too much I cannot "take on faith" anymore. But, I don't know what I am. Pathetic, that I can't even label myself, LOL.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 11:25 PM

Aine, it goes beyond that, there is Thomas that does not exist in my NT as well as Phillip. It has also been suggested that Matthew and Mark were in fact one book that was later divided.

I am not really interested in further bible studies and have stated my beliefs which are compatible with many Christian interpretations of the NT (eg New International Version) and I think I made it clear that there would be other Christian interpretations.

Jon

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 28 Jun 00 - 11:34 PM

Well if that is the case sorcha, I belive the same is said in Matthew 19:19 and Mark 10:19.

Jon

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: IvanB
Date: 29 Jun 00 - 01:05 AM

Actually, John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son..."

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Sorcha
Date: 29 Jun 00 - 01:11 AM

OK, stand corrected.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Marion
Date: 29 Jun 00 - 01:31 AM

Actually, John 3:16 says:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Marion

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Jun 00 - 04:03 AM

Praise, I have no time to read all of this thread now (a cardinal sin when posting, but I hope what follows makes my need to post clear) - and if this is related in particular to one of my posts, perhaps I should have made it clearer that I tend to think much the same of all organised religions. Some of the people in them are OK though.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: keltcgrasshoppper
Date: 29 Jun 00 - 07:03 AM

Having read some but not all of this thread, I would like to only say this. Looking back on some of the other NONmusic threads, it is clear to me that most of the people who post in this site have caring hearts. Jesus remember, associated with the poorest of the poor, the tax collectors, the lepers, the fallen women.. These were his friends. He cared for them. I have always asked "what is a Christian ?" When you here the defination stated by the so called LEADERS none of us would come close. But I think anyone who is a caring, doing person, is also a GOD serving person, and that is what we are called to do, to serve and care for our fellow humans. Praise, I have always felt that your heart is pure and caring, no apology necessary. KGH

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Sean Belt
Date: 29 Jun 00 - 09:31 AM

Flattop,
I really wasn't "nipping at Falwell's arse in clubby little e-mails". I was answering your question about why people are so hard on the guy. If I had the opportunity to speak directly to Rev. Falwell, I'd say the same things.

As for me, I have no desire whatsoever to be a public figure. It requires far more ego and self-promotion than that of which I'm capable. It just doesn't fit my personality or my chosen lifestyle. And I could never in a million years touch Mother Theresa as a saintly person. I do, however make it a point to be a caring, compassionate human being on a small scale and to do what I can on that scale to alleviate suffering in myself and others, and to strive towards keeping an open and inquiring mind. I admit that I seldom reach the goal, but I do keep striving towards non-attachment, living in the now, and a kind heart. Extending Christian charity towards "irritating" preachers is certainly something to be striven for. But, I've never understood Christian charity to mean that I just ignore someone's unkind and destructive acts.

As far as the Dick Tracy reference, it was meant in fun. Mbo is correct in his description. Please don't take offense. I was riffing on your nom de plume, not you, your physical form, character, or intent. It may have been in poor taste, and if so, I apologize.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Jun 00 - 11:08 AM

I am really delighted to see how hard people are trying here to communicate with each other. It isn't what I intended when I began this thread, but it is nice to see.

I am really thinking about what you have each said. And thanks again to the people sending PM's.

It would be my preference that this thread not go to a Part Two, so let's let it run till it runs out. It loads pretty quick actually.

~S~

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: flattop
Date: 29 Jun 00 - 11:23 AM

Sorry Sean. Seems to be a lot of people badmouthing Falwell. I'm just wondering if we judge preachers harsher than we want to be judged ourselves simply because they have the stage and they have taken a stand. What does that say about us? Is this a self-righteous way of boosting our own egos in a TV culture? Should we feel superior simply because we haven't taken a public moral stand or because we are totally righteous seven days a week, 365 days of each and every year? Well, I don't feel righteous enough to condemn them for their lives or their politics.

No offense taken on flattop - especially since I didn't understand your reference.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Jun 00 - 12:55 PM

Way back up there near the top, Joe Offer said, Things get really complicated when you put a big bunch of different people into the same class, and then expect them to be the same. I knw this gets done with Christians, but it also gets doen abotu other segments of society, i.e. gays, lesbians, non-Christians, etc.

If I rail against someone like Falwell, it is because they have been guilty of the "lumping together" which Joe mentioned. Falwell preaches hatred and oppression towards me and mine because we do not happen to follow his beliefs and tenets. I will not and cannot be silent and I do not feel as though I am being self-righteous anymore than anyone else who speaks out and/or bands together in solidarity when they are attacked.

Thank you,

kat

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Jun 00 - 02:38 PM

Lest anyone post and feel I am ignoring it, be advised I will be offline shortly, probably until Monday morning.

Please let this thread run without going to a Part Two. It's OK if it takes awhile to load. You can always use the time to think about what you want to say!

~S~

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Peg
Date: 29 Jun 00 - 03:37 PM

He's so fine, doo-lang, doo-lang, doo-lang...

seems appropriate, doesn't it? To follow up with a (perhaps plagiarized, perhaps not, who cares?) song praising divinity in its many forms? Too bad it's always gotta be male, though!

Than again where would we be without phallus worship? My own life would surely have been a lesser one without it...

Peg
ex-catholic, earth-loving witch

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: bob jr
Date: 29 Jun 00 - 07:06 PM

john 3:16 is the basis for the expression "born again christian" or the term "saved" ie if i just say i accept Jesus as my personnal savior i am done with any other religous work and i can go directly heaven...but since this isnt seen as originating from "the historical Jesus" (meaning the actual human Jesus who walked among us) then there are some trouble with it..thomas is a gospel with no narrative so it is just a sayings gospel which has parrallels in mathew luke and mark note that matthew and luke borrow information from mark but interpert them differently but also have similar material not found in mark suggesting another source hence the creation of the Q gospel theory (q being short for quelle german for source) also there is secondary threads between thomas and mathew and luke suggesting a Q2 gospel .you have to remeber the literacy rate amony the ancient population of judea was less than 10% so it is unlikely that any of the lower classes would be literate (that means all of the apostles at least from the most likely historical perspective) some of you may think none of this is important but it is because Jesus clearly said some important things that have been passed down to us to this day but like that parlour game broken telephone some of it has been garbled on the way down to us . i think it is worth finding out what the original message was to the extent that we can find it out.Jesus was not put to death because he was kind to strangers and healed the sick on the sabbath he was killed for staging an eloborate protest against roman occupation at passover ..all of this is worth learning to get to the true message of Jesus ..it just isnt enough to say i am born again and have done with it..john freeman i just want you to read a couple of books and get responsible in your faith i recommend "jesus a revolutionary biography " by prof john dominic crossan (its excellent and will renew not diminish your faith in the Lord) and the Five gospels (by the jesus seminar) i am not trying to tell anyone how to think just encourage them to think further , sorry if that sounds pretentious its not my intention at all

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 29 Jun 00 - 07:58 PM

thanks bobjr.

I must admit that I found your last couple of sentences in your previous post a little confrontational, hence the tone of my response. This time, I can see that you are rasing some interesting and I think valid points.

Thanks again

Jon (not John ;-)

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: bob jr
Date: 29 Jun 00 - 09:00 PM

sorry jon

i wish to apologize for my earlier statement that did seem kinda of confrontational it was not my intent but having re-read my posting i can see that this is the tone of the message and i really didnt mean it to come across that way. i am by no means an expert on christianity or ones personnal faith but i do continue to study and to learn because i view faith in the same manner i view music you have to keep growing and learning new things it just isnt enough to say "i have faith" anymore than it is to say "i know music" but this is a personnal thing with me so if you dont want to research it that is your own business and i wont tell you otherwise....put it down to my (ex) catholic guilt

bob jr

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 29 Jun 00 - 09:42 PM

No worries, bob jr. I can't see myself buying a book at present but I will be doing a little reading on the internet. Oddly enough, it was only last week that I first read the collection of quotes in Thomas (I cant remeber the site but it had translations of 2 manuscripts) and of the Q theory and it did cause me to think a little at the time.

Religion aside, and going back to earlier comments I had made in this thread, I think one of the good things about Mudcat is that although missundersandings occur, tempers get raised, etc. Overall, there is never any bad feeling (or if there is it is soon forgotten) and people want to be friendly.

Jon

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Jun 00 - 11:51 PM

I've mentioned them before, but they bear mentioning again, IMO, two very good books from a totally different historical record which I can recommend very highly are The Mystical Life of Jesus and The Secret Doctrines of Jesus, both by H. Spencer Lewis. While their rhetoric is a little old fashioned, they contain what for me is true historical facts, but that is from my perspective and belief system only. I mention them only as a suggestion for interesting reading.

Thanks,

kat

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Gypsy
Date: 30 Jun 00 - 11:30 AM

Heres one for you. Try for one day, not using the words "they" or "them". Make it all "us" or "we". Read this thread during that time, making the appropriate changes. Sures tends to make you a nicer person, for that day.

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Jun 00 - 12:23 PM

Gypsy,
I have tried your advice with kat's post just above your post. Didn't make me feel like a nicer person.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jul 00 - 09:46 AM

refresh

Subject: RE: PUBLIC APOLOGY
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Jul 00 - 11:54 AM

Now THAT's interesting. An anonymous Let's Reopen This Can of Worms...