Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usfbobo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!usfbobo!brunson
From: brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss
Subject: Re: David Brunson, come on down
Message-ID: <220@usfbobo.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Nov-84 20:13:04 EST
Article-I.D.: usfbobo.220
Posted: Fri Nov 16 20:13:04 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Nov-84 05:23:26 EST
References: <177@u1100s.UUCP> <464@uwmacc.UUCP>, <1141@bbncca.ARPA>
Organization: Univ. of South Florida, Tampa
Lines: 48

[]

>>DuBois
>>Right, so why are you getting on David's back for some cooked-up
>>concentration on homosexuals?  He doesn't confine his articles to
>>homosexuals, and you know it.
>
>This is another example of our fundamentalist niche lovingly embracing
>falsehood in the face of the facts before us.  It was Brunson who first
>"cooked-up" his harangue, though it took him a while to pose it in the
>guise of "individual rights"--I think he started off with "dirty, weeny,
>little-boy kind of thing."  Brunson's articles to the net consist of
>three broad categories: apologies for discrimination against gays, smarmy
>patronizing allusions to Jews, and Bible criticism.  Is it any
>wonder that a serious Christian would feel acute embarassment at the
>content of his articles in the first two categories?

I don't know what this is about since we didn't get DuBois' article
here.  My "harangue" started when someone accidently stumbled into
net.religion soliciting opinions on "queer-bashers".  The ensuing
discussion was liberally spiced with "Gay Rights" rhetoric.  Since
I find this sort of drivel outrageous I thought I would have a little
fun with it.  At some point in the entertainment it dawned on me that
some people actually believe that "tolerance" is valid as a universal
principle -- a sort of supreme, irrefutable dogma suitable as a basis
for public policy positions.  The discussion then changed so as to 
explore this concept more fully.  Unfortunately we have had to proceed
at the level of the slower students (after all, these people are actually
allowed to vote!) at the expense of those who raise valid points (I am
thinking of Steve Bellovin and, very occasionally, Rich Rosen).  If
the slower students can admit that they are guided by learned value orientation
and not Reason or Logic, then we can proceed to more interesting questions,
such as, what values are appropriate for public policy decisions?  How
can they be objectified and properly understood by future generations
of policy makers so as to prevent either religious or irreligious Yahoos
from doing grotesque injustices?

As for "smarmy patronizing allusions to Jews":  I would like to see
an example of such an allusion along with an analysis that demonstrates
its "smarmy patronizing" nature.  Please include a detailed summary of
the relevant installment(s) of "Lou Grant".  Some of us haven't seen
them all.

--
David Brunson

It's not a pretty job, but *somebody* has to do it.