..Pagans, gays, and lesbians and others blamed for US attacks

[Gość: tomboyyz]

On Thursday''s broadcast of the Christian television program "The 700 Club,"
Falwell, in a discussion with host Pat Robertson about the terrorist attacks in
the United States, said:
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and
the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative
lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way - all of them who have tried
to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say, ''You helped
this happen.''"

http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/search.html?
related=1&search=news_articles.2001/09/14/1

[Gość: Doktorek]

Niestety, przyjacielu, jest dokladnie odwrotnie: to religia, wszystko jedno
jaka, prowadzi do barbarzynstwa.
Nie ma jakosciowej roznicy miedzy fanatycznym islamskim mulla a np. ksiedzem
Rydzykiem. Daj Rydzykowi miliony, jakimi dysponuje Bin Laden, a posypia sie
trupy.
Religia plus poczucie zagrozenia=fanatyzm. Obowiazkiem ludzi swiatlyc jest
pomoc tym, ktorzy nie widza dla siebie miejsca na tym swiecie, aby kult nie
zaslanial im slonca.

[Gość: tomboyyz]

Hey I started this in English... reply in it!

[Gość: Swiatlo]

Gość portalu: Doktorek napisał(a):

> Niestety, przyjacielu, jest dokladnie odwrotnie: to religia, wszystko jedno
> jaka, prowadzi do barbarzynstwa.
> Nie ma jakosciowej roznicy miedzy fanatycznym islamskim mulla a np. ksiedzem
> Rydzykiem. Daj Rydzykowi miliony, jakimi dysponuje Bin Laden, a posypia sie
> trupy.
> Religia plus poczucie zagrozenia=fanatyzm. Obowiazkiem ludzi swiatlyc jest
> pomoc tym, ktorzy nie widza dla siebie miejsca na tym swiecie, aby kult nie
> zaslanial im slonca.

Well, since there are request to continue this thread in English I will write
this in English.
My dear Doktorek, the answer is neither Rydzyk, the feminists, or the alternative
lifestyle. The answer is the model of the traditional family and the social order
based on the traditional common sense. You are trying to confront the religious
fundamentalizm against the self-centered liberal egoizm. Fanatical nationalizm
agaist cosmopolitanizm. They are all equally wrong and dangerous. The enemy is
both in Milosevic, Lukaszenko and Osama bin Laden, as well as in feminists,
lesbians, new agers and all that so called "alternative" human trash. The
difference is that bin Laden kills the society with bombs, while feminists kill
the society with destruction of the family and basic human values.

Swiatlo

[Gość: Doktorek]

Gość portalu: Swiatlo napisał(a):
>
> Well, since there are request to continue this thread
in English I will write
> this in English.
> My dear Doktorek, the answer is neither Rydzyk, the
feminists, or the alternati
> ve
> lifestyle. The answer is the model of the traditional
family and the social ord
> er
> based on the traditional common sense. You are trying
to confront the religious
>
> fundamentalizm against the self-centered liberal
egoizm. Fanatical nationalizm
> agaist cosmopolitanizm. They are all equally wrong and
dangerous. The enemy is
> both in Milosevic, Lukaszenko and Osama bin Laden, as
well as in feminists,
> lesbians, new agers and all that so called
"alternative" human trash. The
> difference is that bin Laden kills the society with
bombs, while feminists kill
>
> the society with destruction of the family and basic
human values.
>
> Swiatlo
>

Well, I will comply, too, although it seems strange to me
to post in English to a forum hosted by a Polish
newspaper, meant to provide a communication platform for
Poles abroad and frequented mostly by Polish-speaking
netizens. The initiator of this thread is located in
Belgium, why not Dutch or French, then?
Let''s get to the point now. You, Swiatlo, seem to assume
that there is a set of universal rules governing ethical
behaviour. Moreover, you probably assume that this set is
given to the mankind by a deity (generally speaking: an
extra-terrestial power). This may or may not be true. As
of now, despite thousands of years of effort, the
existence of such deity could not be proven, or
disproven. Let''s assume that it exists. It then follows
that humans were given an ethical code (commonly called
"natural law") long ago. You seem to concur that this
very old code still is the best answer to ethical
dilemmas of our contemporary world.
This stance is very convenient in everyday life. When
confronted with a problem, moral or otherwise, you just
"follow The Book". The problems with such stance are
many, however.
First, (and I shall stick to the Bible, because I know it
much better than other holy scriptures), the book
contradicts itself in many places, so that you can look
into it and take your pick as a solution to that
particular situation. And interpretations are many.
Second, from the very fact that there are more than one
holy scripture folows that not all of them can be true,
perhaps even none of them. Let''s leave the religious
argument for now, for otherwise we''ll lose the originalk
scope of our discussion. What I try to say is, you
cannot build a normal life solely on religion. Such
regime must be dysfunctional and bad for the people: see
the Taliban.
As regards the universal power of the natural law, i
respectfully must disagree with you. It is clear that the
behaviour code is more culture-bound and follows the
current culture. What you call "self-centered egoism" and
"cosmopolitanism" are logical steps in the development of
humans. We are not perfect! That''s why you perceive
liberalism as "self-centered egoism". But we work on
ourselves to change it and develop into more civilized
race. It takes time, though. Even the pope, not very
progressive himself, sees it and seeks ways in which his
church can adapt to these new circumstances. When I named
Rydzyk here is because his belief has less to do with
christianity and more with the universal stance of all
fanatics in the world: being convinced of their own right
even despite the proof to the contrary and willing to
pursue their own goals at any price.
You preach for the traditional model with family at the
centre and conservative social order. My point is: what
is good for you and me is not necessary good for anything
else. What do you want to do with dissidents? Wipe them
out? Who mandated you to do so? A god? See above. A
society? Which one? There are so many, with different
mindsets... How can you be so sure you and only you are
right? Accusing homosexuals for unleashing (even
indirectly) a mayhem in New York and Washington is simply
bullshit.
I stay by my point: religious fanatism makes you value
your present life so lowly that you simply don''t care.
Then you can commit crimes in the name of higher truth
without even giving it a second thought. The solution is
thus:
1. Making life valuable for everybody. This is no small
task, given the number of people who are poor and without
perspectives. It will also include bringing religions
back to the place they deserve in our minds: as a basis
for life, but only after a conscious reflection. The Ten
Commandments are fine as a moral basis, but you have to
give it a second thought, you have to ask yourself WHY
shall I not kill, or steal, or commit adultery and so on.
Then and only then you can grow and become a part of your
deity of choice. Narrow-minded application of rules that
were made for Jews some 6000 years ago, in the desert,
striving to survive, combat other tribes and found a
state, just won''t work. For one reason or another,
homosexuals, despite all the killings, despise and
discrimination, still survive, and sometimes contribute
to the society at large. You will empoverish yourself by
getting rid of them, or just blaming them falsely.
You lump together tirans like Milosevic or Lukashenka and
fanatic Bin Laden. I think you are wrong. If you give a
certain amount of money and grant impunity to the former
two, they will withdraw, because their motivation is
secular. However, religious fanatics don''t care about
these things. They only see the Kingdom that is not of
this world. This is what makes them a category apart. We
must keep showing to everybody that there is a life worth
living here. This does not exclude the future life in heaven.
Feminists dont kill families, men who don''t recognize
that they are married to a human being, do.
Strange, I never thought I''ll write a diatribe in defence
of homosexuals and feminists... But I had to. Utter
nonsense should not prevail.
Yours truly,

[e-mail]

[Gość: Swiatlo]

I must first congratulate you for your excellent English. From your e-mail
address I assume that you live in Belgium, thus your first language should be
French, or some other local dialect. I live in USA and my English is not even
half of yours. Again, congratulations!

I don''t want to write a similar elaborate philosophical post. I take those things
very simply. The culture in which you live has a huge impact on who you are and
how you bond with other people. It is a decisive factor of your relationship with
your wife, with your children, with your parents and with your neighbour. Don''t
say that those things depend only on me. It is not true.
The pop-culture is the culture focused on consumption. It focuses on taking, not
giving. In this culture I am the center of everything. My problems are most
important, my wellfare is my only goal. I focus my whole energy to satisfy my
desires. I build the world around me so that it can give me all I want, and I am
disappointed when it doesn''t. And I want more and more. The more I have the more
I want. My hunger and thirst never stops. My sexual needs are never satisfied in
the world of constant arousal, where all fashions and media make sure that I
never rest. And I chase more and more perverse means to satisfy myself.
In this culture where stocks fall I don''t care about people going broke as long
as my own perform well. I may even gain on other''s loss.
In this culture I compare my house to other people''s houses, my car to others, my
position to other''s. I am never satisfied and I am never happy.
This culture can be described in one sentence: "Me, Me, Me!".
New York was like that before the bombing, and turned 180 degress after.

Understand, the culture should not be about me. About special rights for gays,
children, women, minorities. We all have special rights: whites, blacks, women
and children, because we are all equal humans and we are all equally protected by
common social order and we all have the same responsibility to it.
Never should the children talk back to their parents. In whatever age they should
always bow to their fathers and mothers. They should never be their parents''
partners, but should respect them with the highest possible esteem. Of course you
will say that it depends on individual situations how parent relate with their
children. It is true only in no more than 50%. It is the culture that mostly
determines how a child talks to the father and the mother.
Every father should be the feeder and mother should be the giver of love. And
don''t say that it is the individual situation of a family. It is not true. If
culture doesn''t impose this, this model very quickly desintegrates. And we see it
clearly around us.
Every child should have the right to a mother and a father. Father the master,
and mother the love. If the culture stands against this model then the society
plunges into darkness.
You may say, as other do in this situation, that the culture doesn''t stand
against it. It just provides an alternative. I tell you, this alternative is the
thing against it. If you provide alternative standards then it is the same as
killing all standards. If you put before your child one plate with vegetable soup
and one plate with candies, he will eat the candies. It is always the taste in
the mouth that attracts more, even if it kills in the stomach.

Talking about the Bible. I don''t care about the historical contradictions. I
leave it to theologists. The Bible is about the relationship with God. It is a
set of stories about people, who like me were sinners, who strugled with their
own dark sides, who were focused on their own problems, who were blind to others.
And only after they acknowledged that it is not them who is the most important,
but it is God and only God, after they turned around (or repented, in other
words), they were saved. It is the book about giving. The book about trust even
in darkest situations.

Another your argument: about changing world, about people like me who stand
against the unevitable. That the world is changing to the pop-culture, liberalism
and cosmopolitanism anyway, and my stand is just plain wrong and reactionary. The
argument about inevitable historical currents.
Again, it is not true. The history is not an unevitable astronomical process,
that we can do nothing about, except just accepting it. The history is done by
us, people. You say the world is going pop, and we must just accept it.
Absolutely not, because if we people decide that the world is not going pop, then
it will not go pop.

Full regards
Swiatlo

[Gość: tomboyyz]

We who are different from what some people consider to be the ''norm'' do not
look for special rights. But for the same rights that the ''norm'' already has.
Especailly in the US where our consutition states we are create equeal. I do
not speak of people who break the law, but people who obey governmental law.
Besides... homosexauls is one of natures way of curbing the over population of
humans on Earth. Since we can''t control our own numbers.

[Gość: Doktorek]

Thank you for your kind words. Actually, my French is very weak. I live in the
northern, Dutch-speaking part of Belgium.
We drifted away a bit from our original topic, but the new one is at least as
much interesting.
You presented two extremes: the traditional family and the unlimited
consumption. In your eyes, the former is right and the latter leads us into
doom and gloom. I say that extremes are always wrong. The "traditional model",
once the best possible, is very limiting nowadays.
In a perfect world, we all would be living in families where parents would be
working hard to earn their living, and the living of their children who, in
turn, would give their parents love and respect and support in their parents''
old day. We both know our world is far from being perfect.
Have you ever wondered where the ideals of French Revolution (liberté,
fraternité, egalité) came from? I think, because the aristocracy did not behave
as such and was not free from all sins of common people. It was thought, then,
that the lesser evil will be to make all people equal. Of course, people are
not equal on many accounts (this may look as a provocative thought, I''ll spare
you another treaty). Some of them simply cannot live up to what is expected of
them. A well-educated child can establish for him/herself if his parents are
worth respect. Can you forbid it? Can you control your children''s thoughts? You
shouldn''t even want to, because then you''d enslave your own child. You can only
do your best to deserve respect.
Many parents fail. Why should their children be burdened with parental failure.
It is hard enough to have bad parents, why put that extra of not being able to
go away?
In short: the traditional model was good in times where people remained stuck
to their own small communities. Peer pressure was high and kept deceptions at
bay. However, exactly in the model of tightly bound families such things as
incest and brutality happen, without even the chance victims tell the outside
world about their misery. Now we became more mobile and our horizons are
limited by TCP/IP protocol stack rather than the line of sight. It is the great
achievement of humankind at large to embrace these changes and put them to use.
We don''t need this closed social structure you described, anymore. This is not
to say there is no place for families. I''d rather opt for the so-
called "nuclear ones", that is only parents and children, staying together
until the children are able to start their own life and then going each their
own way. It''s a good system, speaking from my own experience. I don''t want my
children to bow before me because a law or tradition requires them to do so.
Although I tell my little girl that I don''t like it when she addresses me by my
Christian name, I won''t punish her for that either. She can show me respect
without ceremonies if I deserve it. If not, all ceremonies are in vain.
Dangers are lurking, though. Parents die alone in hospitals, because their well-
off children did not find the time to give them some time and attention. Slack
parental control leads to permissivity and social pathologies among
adolescents. I still believe that the answer is to strike a balance and search
for new ways, instead of letting the pendulum swing all the way to the opposite
pole and lock ourselves up in family domains. This is what Taliban did, and it
is wrong. We must realise that the life of a next generation cannot be the same
as that of the one before. It used to be true, more or less, but it is not now.
We must keep searching for new ways.
Not all the world had consumption as a primary goal. Moreover, only a tiny
fraction of the world has the welfare you are talking about. Thousands and
thousands are still starving to death. While I share your impression about the
ever-present consumption, I don''t mind it that much. If you don''t want to take
part in it, you are free to go. Leave others to do what they think suits them
best. "I am not my brother''s guard", remember? (Genesis, 4,9. By the way, God
did not kill Kane, the murderer, but let him go). I don''t know if the change
into the world of pop-culture is inevitable. (Pop-culture in itself is self-
contradictory, because culture is elitair and cannot be made popular, unless it
ceases to be a culture). The change, for better or worse, is inevitable. And we
agree that it is up to us to decide what it will be, albeit sometimes the
available options are scarce.
Kindest regards
Doktorek

[Gość: Swiatlo]

I will try to answer to a few of your points:


> In short: the traditional model was good in times where people remained stuck
> to their own small communities. Peer pressure was high and kept deceptions at
> bay. However, exactly in the model of tightly bound families such things as
> incest and brutality happen, without even the chance victims tell the outside
> world about their misery.

Yes, there is incest and brutality. No model or culture can prevent that. But we
have laws to protect children from this. The laws sometimes work, sometimes
don''t. There will always be violence and brutality, it is a part of the human
dark side. I would say it is a part of Satan''s work and only full surrender to
God can save us from it. I am not a fundamentalist and by the surrender I don''t
mean any Afghan-like society, but the internal, personal surrender deep inside my
soul. Acknowledging that I am to weak to face Satan alone, and without God''s help
I will be lost. Look at the iceberg. Only one-seventh is above the water. It is
what can be seen in humans. The remaining six-seventh is hidden in the darkness
of deep water, hidden from any sight. If you could explore the underwater part of
the iceberg you can find a huge and complex world. Full of hidden cracks, holes
and caves. Full of traps and deadly dangers. This is our inner world of our minds
that nobody can see. Full of dark and dirty places, filled with worms and nasty
creatures in vast labirynths of hidden fears and obsessions. You cannot imagine
how dark and nasty is my own inner world.
Coming back to incest and brutality, yes it is the result of this dark inner
world, and this is why we have laws and this is why we will always turn to God
for help.
However, we cannot throw the baby with the bathwater. In modern schools the
educational system is so obsessed with incest, that daughters are taught to look
at fathers as potential abusers. They are taught that is normal not to have a
father at all. This system, while not fixing the encest problem at all, it
destroys the relations and brings suspisions into families.

The TCP/IP you are talking about is not God. It allows us to communicate better
over great distances, you can freely contact your loved one at once, but alone it
doesn''t make your life any happier. You are still faced with the most basic
problems: how to make your children love you, how to find a common language with
your wife, how to find security in the hostile world around, and how to clean up
your own dark side.
I would even say that the modern culture by its liberal approach to the dark side
even adds to it. It deepens this darkness, adds new nasty creatues to new hidden
traps, holes and new labirynths.

> Parents die alone in hospitals, because their well off children did not find
> the time to give them some time and attention.

Talking about it, I have had some observations and talks to elderly people, and
what I noticed, it is the parents who were strict but loving to their children
receive most love and attention when old.

> We must keep searching for new ways.

We always have to search for new better ways, but searching doesn''t mean
destroying old ones. Instead, we need to improve existing ways, and never blindly
experiment. The liberal pop-culture fails to solve any of our old problems, and
adds plenty of new ones.

> While I share your impression about the
> ever-present consumption, I don''''t mind it that much. If you don''''t want
> to take part in it, you are free to go. Leave others to do what they think
> suits them best.

That''s it. This is my point. It shouldn''t be the matter of choice. We must stop
this culture of taking and start the culture of giving. You cannot have a choice
either to give or to take. This choice is given to us by Satan, because this
gives strength to our dark side. This choice is simply unfair.
As I said before, the taste in the mouth is much more powerful and attractive,
even if it poisons in the stomach.
We shouldn''t play around with the evil. You cannot open the door for the evil
only partially. Even if you leave only a small crack for it, the evil will
destroy the door wide open.
If you have a wild storm outside, you cannot open windows only partially. If you
leave even a small crack, the storm will destroy your windows with the frames and
then invade the house destroying everything inside.

Regards
Swiatlo

[Gość: Doktorek]

I''ll quote now a person with whom I discussed the same, too. It is a deeply
religious person. Let us allow him/her anonymity:

"I have never heard an explanation of God''s acts and omissions that wasn''t
pure bullshit. Falwell''s latest is one of the worst. In my view, the
truthfulness of religious leader is an inverse to his claim to know God''s
motives.
And I don''t understand why God permits bad things to happen. I do know that
God never promised that bad things wouldn''t happen. Not according to any
reasonable interpretation of scripture."

This more or less sums up the point we started with. In my posts, I rather
wanted to indicate how dangerous any extreme is, also among christians.

The dark side of human nature, satan... only our terminology differs. You
assume an external being that influences us, I prefer to think that we are
fully accountable for our actions, that in other words satan is us, we created
him from our own thoughts, we incarnate him, because there is no satan, just
us. Perhaps we even created God... Because we need Him.

However, we differ when you want to build walls to keep satan outside and I say
it makes no sense, because we carry him as a part of us. Only reason can help
us out there.

Enough said.

Peace,

D.

[Gość: Doktorek]

I''ll quote now a person with whom I discussed the same, too. It is a deeply
religious person. Let us allow him/her anonymity:

"I have never heard an explanation of God''s acts and omissions that wasn''t
pure bullshit. Falwell''s latest is one of the worst. In my view, the
truthfulness of religious leader is an inverse to his claim to know God''s
motives.
And I don''t understand why God permits bad things to happen. I do know that
God never promised that bad things wouldn''t happen. Not according to any
reasonable interpretation of scripture."

This more or less sums up the point we started with. In my posts, I rather
wanted to indicate how dangerous any extreme is, also among christians.

The dark side of human nature, satan... only our terminology differs. You
assume an external being that influences us, I prefer to think that we are
fully accountable for our actions, that in other words satan is us, we created
him from our own thoughts, we incarnate him, because there is no satan, just
us. Perhaps we even created God... Because we need Him.

However, we differ when you want to build walls to keep satan outside and I say
it makes no sense, because we carry him as a part of us. Only reason can help
us out there.

Enough said.

Peace,

D.

[Gość: tomboyyz]

The reason I write in English and not French or Dutch is simply, I do not speak
either of those languages. As to why I write in a Polish forum that to is
simply for me, my polish partner/girlfriend asked me to. We both like to see
how many in the pole community will or can response in Enlgish back to our
threads. She is slowly teaching me Polish so maybe some day I too will be able
to write and reply in Polish.

Thank you for writing in English for now.

[Gość: chlop]

Yo tomboyyz,
If you don''t speak polish you don''t belong on this site.

[Gość: tomboyyz]

Touche mowie bardzo po polski i ucze sie.

Moja pani jest lesbijka polka z Warszawa