Apollo BBS Archive - December 1988

Apollo BBS Archive - December 21 - 28, 1988


$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 4974
Author: $ Jim Lippard
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: 4694/4695
Date: 12/22/88  Time: 15:30:33

As Beau said, I've lost my ability to call Apollo for free from Tucson,
which means I'll only be logging in regularly between semesters.

Message: 4975
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Westfall
Date: 12/22/88  Time: 18:26:57

You're married?  But you're just a kid.

Message: 4976
Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Merry Christmas
Date: 12/22/88  Time: 19:04:04

        Should have wished you all a Merry Christmas before I went out today
to finish my shopping. GRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

        It is not worth it. The true meaning of Christmas is so far buried
in our commercialized society ....... I wonder.

Message: 4977
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Yes, But...
Date: 12/22/88  Time: 21:55:25

We were ALL pizza delivery men once.

Message: 4978
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Ann
Date: 12/23/88  Time: 05:22:14

But why should they celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace in whom they
do not believe? Or why should they take a holiday that honors a cause to
which they are so antagonistic? Doesn't that make them the hypocrites they
so often accuse Christians of being?
 I know many people of the Jewish faith who have the courtesy and respect to
fill in and take over for those Christians who otherwise would have to work
onChristmas day. THis happens often in the nursing profession, in many
restaurants that stay open on the holiday, etc. I have never heard of an
atheist being so considerate, or doing anything concerning a Christian but
ridicule, insult and demean. The least they can do is be consistent and
refuse to accept the holiday in any way, shape or form.

Message: 4979
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Sandy
Date: 12/23/88  Time: 05:25:50

Even though what you say is true, that the real meaning of Christmas is
buried in commercialism in our society, it doesn't have to be lost in your
heart. May the love and peace that the Christ child brought into the
darkness of a sin-sick world brighten your life, both at Christmas and
through the coming year as well. God bless you, Cliff and your boys.

Message: 4980
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Paul/Christmas
Date: 12/23/88  Time: 07:18:44

What would you suggest - they Not exchange gifts - not have family get
togethers - totally ignore Dec. 25th? How about them going into hiding
during the holidays and hiding their faces in shame? Remember - it can be
celebrated just as a holiday that was patterned after St. Nicolas - a monk
that gave away gifts to the people. And why wouldn't athiests want to
celebrate Peace and good will towards men? 
I see no difference between Christians and Athiests where it comes to
consideration. Looks like you need to get a little of the Christmas spirit
yourself with all the digs and condemnation you have for your fellow man!
Think about it Paul - here you are - a professed Christian - wishing
everyone a Merry Christmas but the athiests! I think that's inconsistent.
-=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 4982
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Paul/Atheistmas
Date: 12/23/88  Time: 09:07:51

I know of one atheist's celebration of Christmas that may change her entire
life as she knows it. Read the  SIG for details.

Message: 4983
Author: $ Jim Lippard
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: celebration
Date: 12/23/88  Time: 10:42:56

As many Christians have been known to note with dismay, most people's
celebration of Christmas has absolutely nothing to do with the birth of
Jesus.  Paul, you say "why should they take a holiday that honors a cause to
which they are so antagonistic?"  Why not?  The Christians adopted the
holiday in exactly the same way from pagan religions in the first place.

Message: 4984
Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Ann on Paul
Date: 12/23/88  Time: 13:46:02

        The non-believers, many of them I am sure, want to wish Peace and
Good Will. Their wishes stem from a humanistic point of view. God, the
Bible, Christ's birth, death, and resurrection are not part of a
non-believer. They would be wishing a 'Peace on Earth and Good Will Towards
Men' from a non-Christian view. They trust in themselves for all this peace
and good will.
        Christian wishes for a 'Peace on Earth and Good Will Towards Men'
stems from God and the Bible. Their trust lies with God, not in themselves.
So, I suppose a non-Christian can wish for peace and good will ........
it just seems odd that they would wish such things when the Christians do as
they celebrate the birth of Jesus our Saviour.
        I am sure the non-Christian wishes have no thought or intention to
lean towards the 'True Meaning of Christmas' ..... my complaint would be
the insinuations made by their wishes.

Message: 4985
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Answer!
Subject: Ann
Date: 12/24/88  Time: 04:34:42

What's inconsistent? It would be inconsistent to wish someone a Merry
CHRISTmas who didn't believe in the reason for the season. The very word
lifts up the entity they so abhor. Wishing an atheist a Merry CHRISTmas
would be tantamount to wishing a Christian a happy Satan's Day, were there
such a thing.

Message: 4986
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Paul/last
Date: 12/24/88  Time: 08:24:42

I not only say that it's inconsistant - but it doesn't make a bit of sense.
Athiests love their families - buy tons of gifts for them - buy and decorate
a tree - wrap presants - send Christmas cards to friends and relatives - and
wish others a Merry Christmas! Now here you are - a professed Christian and
you can't find it within yourself to wish an athiest a Merry Christmas???  I
find that inconsistant and un-Christian! I wish everybody a Merry Christmas
because I wish it to be so! -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 4987
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Jim/Christmas
Date: 12/24/88  Time: 10:08:15

But still, why do atheists continue to call their celebration Christmas? You
would think (I would think, at least) that it would offend them. Maybe call
it "St. Nicolas Day" or something.

Message: 4988
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Answer!
Subject: Paul/4985
Date: 12/24/88  Time: 10:17:08

There's where I think you are wrong. Atheism is not (in as far as I've ever
seen) equivalent to Satanism. Many atheists don't believe in God, but that
doesn't mean that they seethe with hatred at the mere mention of Him (at
least I would hope the majority would not.)
 
I would say that the majority of us (both Christians and atheists) no longer
believe in Santa Claus, but how many of us have some pictorial reference to
Santa in our house this year? (Be it a door hanging, or even some wrapping
paper we may have used to wrap gifts with. But knowing that Santa is not
real, does not make us lash out in anger at the mentioning of the name.
 
In other words, it is pointless for an atheist to get upset over a God
he/she does not believe exists. It would be much like getting upset over
nothing!
 
(Ah, but WE know different, don't we Paul? *nudge* Merry CHRISTmas to you!)

Message: 4989
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Debate / dispute
Subject: Daryl....
Date: 12/24/88  Time: 10:56:16

        You are correct about it offending them.....  I believe that soon,
after they get rid of "In God We Trust", there will be a Jim Lippard some
where that will bring suit to have the word "CHIST" taken out of CHRISTmas.
It's all part of their 'destruction' of the Christian religion, and atheists
are nibbling away at our rights under some phony guise about their rights.
        As for wishing them a "Merry Christmas"...  If I know they are
atheists, I just wish them "Happy Holidays".... as that encompasses
Christmas and New Years.  
        (However, that does not even work for Rod...as he does not believe
in time so there can be no "NEW-YEAR".)
        But I agree with Paul... How can an atheist possably understand the
JOY of CHRISTmas?
        But I wish EVERYONE well this Holiday Season!

*=* SYSOP Cliff *=*

Message: 4990
Author: $ Jim Lippard
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 12/24/88  Time: 11:29:47

Many secularists simply use "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas",
while others talk about the Winter Solstice.
   As for use of "Christmas", it is a convenient label for Dec. 25th.  The
reason atheists continue to use the name is the same reason they continue to
use "God" in swearing, or "A.D." in reference to the calendar year.  It's
simply a social convention.  We use many words without regard to their
original meanings, that's just part of how language works.

Message: 4991
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Lippard
Date: 12/24/88  Time: 15:27:43

Then why not relax about things like Nativity scenes and "In God We Trust"
and count them as social convention?

Message: 4992
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: last!
Date: 12/24/88  Time: 19:56:03

Because, Lippard has no other meaning in life other than to spread lies
and hate about a God he doesn't believe in. Now he wants a Phd in an
area undefinable by its nature, so that people will give him credibility-
the same gullible types who might start to believe his hate trash about
Jesus Christ and wanting "In God We Trust" removed from the currency.
Eventually they'll win..I hope they do soon because it will be a very
short-lived "success".
Notice how Jim likes to dance around the things he doesn't want to think
about and attempts to call up "facts" that represent opposition in another
direction.
Sure, he'll spend hours digging up stuff he calls proof....but if it was
FACTS, if it is PROOF, then he wouldn't spend so much effort in trying
to convince you . No, Daryl says it right, why would anyone show so much
hatred against something so little about something they claim they don't
believe in , in the first place?
Answer; because they haven't yet faced the real truth and don't want to.
 
                                -Mike

Message: 4993
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 12/24/88  Time: 20:54:07

Oh, that explains it.

Message: 4994
Author: $ Jim Lippard
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: 4991/Taranto
Date: 12/24/88  Time: 21:56:44

It's fine as long as it isn't done with my tax dollars.

Message: 4995
Author: $ Jim Lippard
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Carter
Date: 12/24/88  Time: 21:57:31

You're probably the most hate-filled person I know.

Message: 4996
Author: $ David Burkhart
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: last
Date: 12/25/88  Time: 00:51:20

I have to agree with you there, even if you are a Godless sinner who will
burn in hell.
Oops, almost forgot -- Merry Christmas.

Message: 4997
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Jim/4994
Date: 12/25/88  Time: 02:14:40

        No Jim, It's my TAX dollars.   Your TAX dollars are used to
process trifle type law suits.  I don't like my money spent on Nuclear power
plants, so we all have problems, don't we?

*=* SYSOP Cliff *=*

Message: 4998
Author: $ Alan Hamilton
Category: Believe it or not!
Subject: Today
Date: 12/25/88  Time: 05:06:49

     Simply because I don't believe in God or Jesus Christ doesn't mean I
want everone to be miserable today.  So, I *do* wish you all have a merry
Christmas, for whatever reason.
     I celebrate Christmas as a folk holiday.  Christmas trees, wrapped
gifts, colored light and Santa Claus are not Christian in origin, and I
enjoy all of them.  I even like listening to Christmas carols, even the
religious ones, simply because I like the way they sound.
     So Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Joyous Yule, Happy Holidays, and
have a Happpy New Year.
 
     /
 /  *  /  Alan
*     *

Message: 4999
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Hamilton
Date: 12/25/88  Time: 16:17:13

What a stirring holiday tribute.

Message: 5001
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Lippard
Date: 12/25/88  Time: 16:18:19

So, how much tax money do you suppose would be saved by the removal of "In
God We Trust" from U.S. currency?

Message: 5002
Author: $ Jim Lippard
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: last
Date: 12/25/88  Time: 17:34:58

Probably none.  But some would certainly be saved by a government policy of
not spending money to promote religion.

Message: 5003
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: last
Date: 12/25/88  Time: 18:20:48

Wrong. There'd be a whole bunch spent because there would have to
be an almost complete retrofit at the MINT and the plates used to print
the bills and forms or molds and stamps and presses changed for the
coins. Now a days there would have to be a LOT of tax dollars spent
because you'd have the watchdog groups battling each other over hwo it was
done and the bankroll for all the lawyers etc et al.
 
Yep, as long as there's fools out there who beleive that they own
the rights to everyone's TAX dollars, there'll be more of it wasted.

Message: 5004
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Lippard
Date: 12/25/88  Time: 18:54:23

Carter is right, of course, despite his crude argumentation.  If the
government adopted such a policy, someone would have to make the decisions
as to what constituted "promotion of religion."  No doubt there would be
disagreements about the interpretation of this policy, and if it were
written into law, those disagreements would find their way into court.  The
government would, of course, spend tax money paying lawyers to defend its
position.  Now, suppose the following happened:  The government decided to
fund some program after a determination by the bureaucrat in charge of
administering this policy that it did not promote religion.  The ACLU then
sued the government, claiming that the government's position was wrong and
the program did indeed promote religion.  The ACLU prevailed at the District
Court level.  Now, if the government is promoting religion by funding this
program, it must also be promoting religion by defending its funding of the
program, so, if the trial judge's opinion is correct, the government is
violating its policy by defending its judgment in court.  Presumably,
though, the government would still be allowed to appeal, but if the Supreme
Court (or the Circuit Court if the case doesn't get that high) agrees with
the ACLU, then the government has compounded the initial violation by
spending all the money it takes to defend itself in this litigation.  So, a
policy against spending government money to promote religion could result in
the government spending even more money to promote religion.

It is one thing to set forth a goal (i.e., saving money by not spending
money to promote religion) and another thing to achieve the goal.  I am
not convinced that your proposed policy would attain the goal.  Moreover, I
question your motives in setting forth the goal; if your desire is to
decrease federal spending, I can think of scores of better ways of doing
that than barring the government from spending money promoting religion.
Obviously your real aim is to undermine religion, or at least to distance
the government from it.  In that case, we must ask:  Why?  What purpose is
served by a crusade against any mingling between religious values and the
state?  Whose rights are violated if the government, for example, sponsors a
Nativity scene in a public park, or places the motto "In God We Trust" on
currency?  As far as I can tell, no one's.  It seems that your objection to
government promotion of religion is simply that you don't like religion.
The government does not exist to suit your whims -- yet your whim seems to
be the only justification you have for your position.  You have yet even to
attempt to explain what public interest is served by a radical attempt to
purge public life of any vestige of religion.

Message: 5006
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Atheists/Cliff
Date: 12/25/88  Time: 22:33:29

For an atheist to try to remove the CHRIST (in name, at least) from
Christmas would probably do more to harm their movement than to help it.
Plus the Christmas holiday is not a Government-ordained function, so there
is nothing they can do about it.

Message: 5007
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Jim/Words
Date: 12/25/88  Time: 22:35:16

Well, you mention that we use many words without regard to their original
meanings. Well, how many people do you know that, upon picking up any
currency, immediately start praising the Lord because of the phrase "In God
We Trust?" To many, the phrase has just become part of the decoration on our
currency. Not a threat.

Message: 5008
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: James/5001
Date: 12/25/88  Time: 22:38:01

Well, figure the amount of green ink used to print those four words, times
the billions of notes printed each year.........heh heh heh!

Message: 5009
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Music
Subject: Music?
Date: 12/25/88  Time: 22:40:50

This is in re: to Mike's comment on the expenses involved with new currency.
 
Well, they've been discussing a new currency for quite some time now.
Perhaps a bill printed on watermarked paper with different colors for each
denomination. Everyone who owned currency in the old (green) denominations
would have to exchange it in for the new. (And just how much money do YOU
have stored away that they Government will never know about...until then?)

Message: 5010
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Christmas
Date: 12/25/88  Time: 23:28:15

What do you mean, it is not a government-ordained function? It is a federal
holiday.

Message: 5011
Author: $ Jim Lippard
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Daryl
Date: 12/26/88  Time: 00:20:32

The point was is that there is nothing unusual about atheists using the term
"Christmas" without being offended, any more than there is anything unusual
about Christians using the name of a Norse goddess for their most
significant holiday (Easter).

Message: 5012
Author: $ Jim Lippard
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Taranto
Date: 12/26/88  Time: 00:26:10

Actually, you have things slightly backwards.  I think *any* function of
government requires justification.  You are taking the view that what we
have is more or less justified and we need arguments to trim parts of it
away, while my view is that we should start assuming that nothing is
justified and add to that only what can be justified.
   Thus my argument treats promotion of religion no different than promotion
of sports or anything else.  In a properly minimal government, it is
doubtful that such situations as you describe would arise, since it is
doubtful that there would be public parks or government currency,
let alone government Christmas creches or government religious mottos.
   There is, of course, the pragmatic question of whether or not such things
as ACLU lawsuits against the currency slogan are steps towards
minimalization of government, and it may well be the case that they are not,
for reasons such as you have given.
   I tend to argue politics regarding the way things should be ideally,
rather than how to get there from here.  It's a common libertarian failing.

Message: 5013
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Wait...
Date: 12/26/88  Time: 09:10:44

By letting government employees have a day off for a holiday that has become
ALMOST as important in secular circles as well as Christian circles.
My father works for the City. He didn't get off for Christmas. All the day
off does is offer a day off on a holiday celebrated by Christians and
atheists alike (though for different reasons). By giving you that day off
from work, they are not FORCING you in any way to celebrate or partake in
any way, shape, or form in the Christmas holiday. You could go to a bar, get
pissed and shout Bah Humbug until your throat went hoarse. It would make no
difference to the government. Tell me, why do we continue to give our
federal employees Veterans Day off? Or State? Or Bank? It's much the same as
Christmas in a few aspects; most of the original intent has been lost, and
it has become more of a picnic and department store-saleabration day than a
day to honor our war veterans, living and passed on. As for Christmas, by
forcing Christians to work on Christmas, it would be denying them their
religious freedom to celebrate Christ's birth in a manner that they see fit.
If the atheists want to work on religious holidays, I say they take it to
the courts. If they wanna work on Christmas and Easter, LET EM! But I don't
think you will see any of them giving up a day from work to do as they
please (many of them WITH PAY).

Message: 5014
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Idea for thought
Subject: Jim/Easter
Date: 12/26/88  Time: 09:12:19

Hm, I never knew that. Perhaps there should be a Christian movement to
rename the holiday "Ascension Day."

Message: 5015
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Jim/Relig./Sports
Date: 12/26/88  Time: 09:14:50

Hm, though some people might consider a last-second touchdown to be a
religious experience, I can with all sincerity say that I have not. Heh. I
detest sporting events. Actually, the closest common denominator I can see
linking sports and religion is Television Evangelists and Pro Wrestling.

Message: 5016
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Daryl/colored money
Date: 12/26/88  Time: 10:05:37

There's a good answer for that Re: the goverment finding out how much you
have stored away - buy silver instead. -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 5017
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Lippard
Date: 12/26/88  Time: 20:02:59

Naturally I agree with you that the burden of justification is on the one
promoting government action rather than the one disagreeing with it.  If,
for example, this were an argument about whether the government should print
money at all, I would say that someone claiming it should would have to
explain why.  (Incidentally, I have no desire to start such an argument,
although the Cato Institute has a bunch of very boring-looking publications
on the subject.  They also had a luncheon on the subject a couple of weeks
ago, which I was going to attend, but couldn't get a date.)

There is no way you can argue, however, that removing "In God We Trust" from
currency would make the government any less powerful.  Prohibiting the
government from sponsoring a Nativity scene in a public park places one very
specific limitation on what the government can do, but does not notably
decrease the power or scope of government.

I believe that the Establishment Clause is properly interpreted as a
corrolary to the Free Exercise Clause; that is, government actions which
"promote" religion are not unconstitutional per se, but are unconstitutional
if they pass some threshold such that somebody can plausibly claim his
rights are being violated.  Organized school prayer, for example, is
unconstitutional, while public displays of Nativity scenes are not.

The ACLU's interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause is, in my opinion,
flawed, but it seems harmless enough on its face.  However, in combination
with the expansive, activist government which we seem more or less stuck
with, the ACLU's position leads necessarily to a government which is
actively opposed to religion.  The provision of the Dodd-Kildee Childcare
Bill that I mentioned earlier is an example of this pernicious effect.

Message: 5019
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Nativity Scenes
Date: 12/27/88  Time: 10:10:22

So, a group of fellow Subgenii and I should be able to raise money to buy a
huge Dobbshead, complete with pipe, and have it placed on the lawn of City
Hall on the anniversary of his assassination?  This, of course, would only
apply to those city halls which allowed nativity scenes?

Message: 5020
Author: $ David Burkhart
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: last
Date: 12/27/88  Time: 15:06:11

It's OK with me.

Message: 5021
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Harvey
Date: 12/27/88  Time: 17:28:50

If the lawn of City Hall is a public forum, then sure you should.

Message: 5022
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Last Few...
Date: 12/27/88  Time: 18:29:30

        I have no problem with that.... go for it!

*=* SYSOP Cliff *=*

Message: 5023
Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: IGWT
Date: 12/28/88  Time: 11:47:31

        I heard rumors amoungst the opponents of religion that when the
motto 'In God We Trust' on our currency is taken off, because it was
considered -- fostering a religion -- ...........
        These same opponents will be changing the course of American History
when, upon their insistance, the Supreme Court removes D, G, and O from our
alphabet because when arranged in a certan way they will foster religion.

        -h, hum ...... what next, Lippar-?

                        San-y  SyS-p

Message: 5024
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Currency
Date: 12/28/88  Time: 17:19:46

  It wouldn't cost anything to exclude religious mottos from future designs.
   See You Later
      Dean H.

Message: 5025
Author: $ James Taranto
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Hathaway
Date: 12/28/88  Time: 17:26:22

How much would it save?