------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: Enola Gay Date: Sun Aug 04 20:52:11 CDT 1996 Message number: 1 Reply to message number: -2 DD> Dropping the A-bomb was wrong, just as drafting people is wrong, just as BT> BT> Why do you believe that dropping "the bomb" was a mistake? The history boo BT> say that by killing people with it, there were actually several thousand th BT> were saved because the war was ended then. BT> That is the conflict that I was talking about. We may think that it is "wrong" to drop the bomb and kill anyone at all, and in fact, not know the truth about what *might* have happened. We do know that violence begets violence, and that the fact of dropping the bomb changed the world such that always and forever, people will be afraid of someone else bombing THEM, just because we know that it has already been done. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARKSHINE To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: Enola Gay Date: Mon Aug 12 22:29:24 CDT 1996 Message number: 2 Reply to message number: -2 DD> Dropping the A-bomb was wrong, just as drafting people is wrong, just as BT> BT> Why do you believe that dropping "the bomb" was a mistake? The history boo BT> say that by killing people with it, there were actually several thousand th BT> were saved because the war was ended then. She didn't say that it was a mistake, she said it was wrong. THe difference is subtle but important. To drop a bomb on innocents is wrong. That's all there is to it. Perhaps it was the lesser of two evils, perhaps even unnavoidable, yet it was still not a moral action. |05 . ś . ś . |05 ®(š=-Darkshine-=š)Æ |05 ł . ł . ł ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LEMON To: Darkshine Subject: The Days Of Swine And Roses Date: Sun Aug 18 08:05:51 CDT 1996 Message number: 3 Reply to message number: 2 Well, sure the war was ended, but at what cost? Nuking a whole shitload of innocents really scared everyone into submission, but I can't really say that it was the best choice. But then, I wasn't around then, so I can't really say for sure. -lemon (just trying to jump in the conversation) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Lemon Subject: Re: Date: Sun Aug 18 16:52:37 CDT 1996 Message number: 4 Reply to message number: 3 L> Well, sure the war was ended, but at what cost? Nuking a whole shitload of L> innocents really scared everyone into submission, but I can't really say tha L> it was the best choice. But then, I wasn't around then, so I can't really sa L> for sure. L> -lemon (just trying to jump in the conversation) The way one looks at the consequences seriously shapes the way one looks at the choice to drop the bomb. It depends on how much value is placed strictly on the number of human lives lost and which lives were lost. If America hadn't used the bomb, we would have invaded Japan within a few months. The bomb killed hundreds of thousands, most of them civilians which goes against most rules of warfare conduct. The bomb then to some extent shocked the military groups ruling Japan into surrendering. An invasion of Japan would have likely involved about 5 million American and British troops and 5 million Japanese troops as well as a significant portion of the japanese civilains who most likely would have risen to protect their homeland from foreign invaders. The losses expected, the numbers given to the President, were around 1 million American and British soldiers and about 2 million Japanese soldiers and many many more civilians... Those involved in the decision to drop the bomb and the civilians killed by that as an alternative to the millions of soldiers and civilians that would have been killed in an invasion. From my reading the President and others chose to take the definite loss of hundreds of thousands instead of the probable loss of millions. Beyond those numbers, The decision makers also had to deal with the public of their own country. The President of the United States didn't want to lose any more American boys because that would be unpopular with the American public. An interesting note to the whole moral dilemma is that the terms we finally took for the Japanese surrender were offered to the United States about a month earlier. Those terms being unconditional surrender except that the japanese got to keep their emperor. Those terms were turned down when the Japanese offered them because the leaders wanted to get rid of the emperor as part of the terms. The entire bomb vs. invasion decision could have been avoided if the leaders had been more reasonable. Hundreds of thousands could have been saved if the leaders had dealt more wisely before they faced the decision to drop the bomb. -Specter -just a little something to throw in. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARKSHINE To: Lemon Subject: Re: The Days Of Swine And Roses Date: Mon Aug 19 23:15:50 CDT 1996 Message number: 5 Reply to message number: 3 L> Well, sure the war was ended, but at what cost? Nuking a whole shitload of L> innocents really scared everyone into submission, but I can't really say tha L> it was the best choice. But then, I wasn't around then, so I can't really sa L> for sure. I never really gave an opinion, I was simply trying to difine some somantics. I don't know that there really is a correct opinion. About the only time I could see an actual right-wrong decision that would have helped was back at the end of WWI when the Allies destroyed the German economy by making them pay for all the victors' debts. Forgiveness may have been in order. A severely depressed economy was one of the main factors allowing Hitler to come to power. I find it's much simpler to accept the past as passed and not worry over things that are done. |05 . ś . ś . |05 ®(š=-Darkshine-=š)Æ |05 ł . ł . ł ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LEMON To: Darkshine Subject: want to buy some rust colored underwear? Date: Tue Aug 20 00:42:13 CDT 1996 Message number: 6 Reply to message number: 5 D> I find it's much simpler to accept the past as D> passed and not worry over things that are done. "Those who forget the past bla bla bla" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: HOWARD ROARK To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: Enola Gay Date: Tue Aug 20 11:13:20 CDT 1996 Message number: 7 Reply to message number: -2 ^1-=> Quoting Big Teebo to Daring Diane J. <=- DD> Dropping the A-bomb was wrong, just as drafting people is wrong, just as BT> BT> Why do you believe that dropping "the bomb" was a mistake? The history boo BT> say that by killing people with it, there were actually several thousand th BT> were saved because the war was ended then. BT> Iwould have to agree. Although I belive that using nuclear wepons on people is wrong and immoral at the same time I belive it wrong to sacrifise thousands of lifes. The US was cought between a rock and a hard place and in the end thay had to choose the lesser of two evils wich, in this case, surprisingly, was dropping the atomic bombs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARING DIANE J. To: FROGGY Subject: Re: Enola Gay Date: Tue Aug 20 18:23:07 CDT 1996 Message number: 8 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy to Daedalus Rising <=- DR> Doesm't change my opinion at all, but it does give it a whole new perspe DR> ... those hundreds of thousands of American (not to mention Japanese) sol DR> they expected to die in the kainland invasion suddenly have a face to the DR> and a home to come back to after it's all over. Fr> Fr> I have become convinced that this is true too, and have the Fr> same conflict about it. It is unfortunate that the Japanese were so Fr> determined to sacrifice every living Japanese citizen for the I may be simple-minded, but I will never be conflicted about militarism. Dropping the A-bomb was wrong, just as drafting people is wrong, just as trying to solve problems through violence is counterproductive (i.e., wrong). ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARING DIANE J. To: BIG TEEBO Subject: Re: Enola Gay Date: Tue Aug 20 18:23:13 CDT 1996 Message number: 9 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Big Teebo to Daring Diane J. <=- DD> Dropping the A-bomb was wrong, just as drafting people is wrong, just as BT> Why do you believe that dropping "the bomb" was a mistake? The BT> history books say that by killing people with it, there were actually BT> several thousand that were saved because the war was ended then. Before I make a full reply, teebo, I wish to know if you are in favor of the death penalty. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARKSHINE To: Lemon Subject: Re: want to buy some rust colored underw Date: Tue Aug 20 18:43:43 CDT 1996 Message number: 10 Reply to message number: 6 D> I find it's much simpler to accept the past as D> passed and not worry over things that are done. L> L> "Those who forget the past bla bla bla" I certainly don't advocate forgetting, just not obsessing. |05 . ś . ś . |05 ®(š=-Darkshine-=š)Æ |05 ł . ł . ł ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daring Diane J. Subject: Re: Enola Gay Date: Tue Aug 20 19:52:29 CDT 1996 Message number: 11 Reply to message number: 8 DD> Fr> I have become convinced that this is true too, and have the DD> Fr> same conflict about it. It is unfortunate that the Japanese were so DD> Fr> determined to sacrifice every living Japanese citizen for the DD> I may be simple-minded, but I will never be conflicted about militarism. DD> Dropping the A-bomb was wrong, just as drafting people is wrong, just as DD> trying to solve problems through violence is counterproductive (i.e., wrong I agree, but the complication comes when you do not participate in military actions, yet have to watch other people do it, and cause much misery. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Daring Diane J. Subject: Re: Enola Gay Date: Wed Aug 21 01:56:32 CDT 1996 Message number: 12 Reply to message number: 9 DD> Before I make a full reply, teebo, I wish to know if you are in favor of DD> the death penalty. I am neither for nor against the death penalty - in the current state of higgly-piggly I don't think the people in charge can be trusted to make those kinds of decisions - I don't like the idea of a government being invested with the power to take my life away - but I still believe that many people in this world would be better to us dead. *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: HOWARD ROARK To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: Enola Gay Date: Wed Aug 21 06:13:21 CDT 1996 Message number: 13 Reply to message number: 12 BT> I am neither for nor against the death penalty - in the current state of BT> higgly-piggly I don't think the people in charge can be trusted to make tho BT> kinds of decisions - I don't like the idea of a government being invested BT> with the power to take my life away - but I still believe that many people BT> this world would be better to us dead. BT> BT> *teebo Who are you, or anyone for that matter, to decide whom the world would be better of without. Talk about opression, to kill is to take away not just one but all of someones liberties they cannot do anything ever again. On a similar note I am so sick of all these right wingers who are VERY prolife but at the same time are huge supporters of the death penalty, or thease Cristian Coalition people who quote the bible every third word and use it to justify there actions but when it comes to the death penalty tend to ignore "Thou shal not kill." or "Turn the other cheek.". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Howard Roark Subject: Re: Enola Gay Date: Wed Aug 21 06:50:51 CDT 1996 Message number: 14 Reply to message number: 13 HR> Who are you, or anyone for that matter, to decide whom the world would HR> better of without. Talk about opression, to kill is to take away not just HR> but all of someones liberties they cannot do anything ever again. I am whoever you let me be. I don't have much tolerance for murderers, rapists, etc. Call me a tyrant.. *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: BRIAREOS HECATONCHIRES Subject: Re: Enola Gay Date: Fri Aug 23 12:34:36 CDT 1996 Message number: 15 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Briareos Hecatonchires : BH> Well, there is the matter of the US request for surrender. The US BH> asked for it, and the Japanese response was "We don't understand the BH> word ''surrender''," which some interpreter read as "We don't know the BH> meaning of the word ''surrender''." This was true, since before the BH> war, the actual word hadn't existed in the Japanese language at all. That's not completely correct. I don't recall the exact phrase used or the exact interpretation, but the Japanese replied to the request for surrender with a phrase that could be interpreted two ways: either "we remain in thoughful contemplation" or something like "we won't surrender". We chose to believe the latter, and assumed that they would not surrender. In retrospect, we were probably right - the military had such a strong stranglehold on the government, and some of those leaders had no intention of surrering. ... Let no good deed go unpunished. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: DARKSHINE Subject: Re: Enola Gay Date: Fri Aug 23 12:34:37 CDT 1996 Message number: 16 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Darkshine : BT> Why do you believe that dropping "the bomb" was a mistake? The history b BT> say that by killing people with it, there were actually several thousand BT> were saved because the war was ended then. Da> She didn't say that it was a mistake, she said it was wrong. THe Da> difference is subtle but important. To drop a bomb on innocents is Da> wrong. That's all there is to it. Perhaps it was the lesser of two Da> evils, perhaps even unnavoidable, yet it was still not a moral action. Good point. To add another layer to the cake, the use of incindeary firebombs in Germany and Japan were far more devestating than the nukes were - but hardly anyone debates the morality of their use. In some ways, a nuclear weapon is more humane than this napalm-like fire that burns down entire cities, melts flesh and slowly tortures those it kills. Besides slowly burning alive with a fire that could not be put out and suffocating as the fires burned away all the oxygen, people literally exploded from the heat ... which often reached 2000 degrees. Deaths from cancer and radiation sickness aside, at least a nuclear weapon kills quickly. ... The worst thing about censorship is . ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: SPECTER Subject: Re: The Pacific Theatre Date: Fri Aug 23 12:34:38 CDT 1996 Message number: 17 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Specter : Sp> surrendering. An invasion of Japan would have likely involved about 5 Sp> million American and British troops and 5 million Japanese troops as Slight `correction' - the Brits wouldn't have participated in any meaningful way in the invasion of Japan. The pacific was Our War, and we didn't want to share the responsibility nor the credit with anyone. Sp> public. An interesting note to the whole moral dilemma is that the Sp> terms we finally took for the Japanese surrender were offered to the Sp> United States about a month earlier. Those terms being unconditional Sp> surrender except that the japanese got to keep their emperor. Those Sp> terms were turned down when the Japanese offered them because the Sp> leaders wanted to get rid of the emperor as part of the terms. The Sp> entire bomb vs. invasion decision could have been avoided if the Sp> leaders had been more reasonable. The offers were never taken very seriously, and there are questions as to whether they were even valid offers of peace. Instead of sending them directly to the Americans, the Japanese ferreted these peace overtures through the Russian government. If they had been truly serious, there were other ways to go about doing it. Also, there's little indication that most sectors of the Japanese military would have been willing to accept that sort of surrender. ... Clinton supporters know how the American Indians felt. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARING DIANE J. To: BIG TEEBO Subject: Re: Enola Gay Date: Sat Aug 24 03:37:15 CDT 1996 Message number: 18 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Big Teebo to Daring Diane J. <=- DD> Before I make a full reply, teebo, I wish to know if you are in favor of DD> the death penalty. BT> I am neither for nor against the death penalty - in the current state BT> of higgly-piggly I don't think the people in charge can be trusted to BT> make those kinds of decisions - I don't like the idea of a government BT> being invested with the power to take my life away - but I still BT> believe that many people in this world would be better to us dead. I apologize for not making a full reply at this time. That said, I will state that I think killing during wartime is wrong because I think killing is wrong. I believe in respecting what God has created. God created each person. A person is sacred because a person is God's creation. Killing a person is wrong. It is disrespectful. Even if that person has lived dis- respectfully and I despise her or him, I still will not kill that person. I cannot predict the future. Perhaps in the future that person will repent her or his evil and reform into a respecting person again. I believe in the commandment against killing. For me to "play God" by killing one evil person in the fallible human calculation that this death will prevent the loss of many other lives is wrong. I do not believe God has given me the right to make that judgment. I cannot predict the future. I do not believe anyone can predict the future. Calculating that the murder of one person will have a great benefit is a mistaken belief in human ability to infallibly predict the future. (P.S.: I believe that abortion is OK, but I do not believe that killing a person after she or he has been born is OK.) ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Daring Diane J. Subject: Re: Enola Gay Date: Sat Aug 24 04:35:15 CDT 1996 Message number: 19 Reply to message number: 18 DD> I apologize for not making a full reply at this time. That said, I will DD> state that I think killing during wartime is wrong because I think killing DD> is wrong. I believe in respecting what God has created. God created each DD> person. A person is sacred because a person is God's creation. Killing a I agree for the most part, but in the case of dropping the A-Bomb in the long run it quite possibly killed LESS people, so in that case wouldn't it agree with you? It's the lesser of two evils, as was earlier mentioned. *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: The Pacific Theatre Date: Sat Aug 24 04:53:42 CDT 1996 Message number: 20 Reply to message number: 15 DR> Slight `correction' - the Brits wouldn't have participated in any DR> meaningful way in the invasion of Japan. The pacific was Our War, and we DR> didn't want to share the responsibility nor the credit with anyone. Well the Brits did have some share in the Pacific War. Quite a bit as I remember up until the Japanese attacks. the sources I read, mostly members of the President's Cabinet and war advisors, expected the British to send about one fifth of what the americans did. Specter -May benevolence and reason guide you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: SPECTER Subject: Re: The Pacific Theatre Date: Sat Aug 24 12:20:10 CDT 1996 Message number: 21 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Specter : DR> Slight `correction' - the Brits wouldn't have participated in any DR> meaningful way in the invasion of Japan. The pacific was Our War, and we DR> didn't want to share the responsibility nor the credit with anyone. Sp> Well the Brits did have some share in the Pacific War. Quite a bit as Sp> I remember up until the Japanese attacks. the sources I read, mostly Sp> members of the President's Cabinet and war advisors, expected the Sp> British to send about one fifth of what the americans did. Once the Brits lost control of their holdings early in the war, they were discredited and were essentially meaningless from that point on. I can't recall which country it was (Malaysia or Singapore?), but the Britains surrendered to the Japanese in what could be considered the Brittish amry's most humiliating defeat ever - and after that, both Britain's presence in the Pacific and East Asian imperialism were over. The Brits also had two large battleships in the Pacific and a decent-sized fleet, but without any aircraft carriers to protect them they were cannon fodder for the Japanese fleet. Once the Brits lost enough ships to prove the point, they hid out in the Indian Ocean for the remainder of the war. So no, the Brittish had little role in the Pacific war - and even less in the invasion of Japan and its territories. They may have had some in the beginning, but it didn't really amount to anything. After their humiliating defeats and after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Pacific was war Our War. Some natives helped protect their home islands (the Phillipinos, Austrialians), but the european powers were almost nonexistant. ... An optimist is a guy without much experience. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARING DIANE J. To: BIG TEEBO Subject: Re: Enola Gay Date: Mon Sep 02 05:21:45 CDT 1996 Message number: 22 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Big Teebo to Daring Diane J. <=- DD> person. A person is sacred because a person is God's creation. Killing BT> I agree for the most part, but in the case of dropping the A-Bomb in BT> the long run it quite possibly killed LESS people, so in that case BT> wouldn't it agree with you? It's the lesser of two evils, as was BT> earlier mentioned. BT> *teebo No, this reasoning does not agree with my position. I believe killing any one person is wrong. The lesser of two evils "problem" is not one I accept. Killing is so terrible that a majority of soldiers avoid it. I heard that in World War Two, for instance, a statistic indicated a large percentage of soldiers deliberately shot their guns in a way that they felt would not actually connect with an enemy's body. THis may be true of the Viet Nam War, also. Perhaps Froggy could help me out on this discussion about killing being wrong. Froggy, can I cajole you into participating? Or, am I left to my own Quaker devices on this one? ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LUCIUS SULLA To: Starfire Subject: Re: Enola Gay Date: Mon Sep 02 06:39:15 CDT 1996 Message number: 23 Reply to message number: 0 S> I believe that drafting people is wrong because you are forcing them to agre S> with you that killing is right in any circumstance that they should so choos S> S> On the other hand killing people doesn't save people it is just that killing S> Maybe it saved AMERICAN lives but are those the only ones that matter? Your belief in the draft is a bit of a stretch, but not a bad point. The draft IS slavery, however. Your second point is rather thought-provoking, however. I never liked how the allies blood-lust went more for civilians than enemy troops. We turned Germany into a parking lot and its only because of Joseg Goebells that we still have the original organ that J.S. Bach used and all those gorgeous stained-glass windows that he had stored in deep mines while all the buildings--some dating back to the Carolingian rennaissance--were flattened. The axis conducted the war itself (I'm not talking abour the anti-semetic policies, just the war) more honorably than did the Allies. Killing civilians to weaken national resolve is terrorism and terrorism is barbaric. Dresden perhaps being the most extreme example. LS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: LUCIUS SULLA To: Lemon Subject: Re: want to buy some rust colored underw Date: Mon Sep 02 06:40:32 CDT 1996 Message number: 24 Reply to message number: 6 L> "Those who forget the past bla bla bla" Amen, sibling ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daring Diane J. Subject: Re: Enola Gay Date: Mon Sep 02 11:44:45 CDT 1996 Message number: 25 Reply to message number: 22 DD> BT> I agree for the most part, but in the case of dropping the A-Bomb in DD> BT> the long run it quite possibly killed LESS people, so in that case DD> BT> wouldn't it agree with you? It's the lesser of two evils, as was DD> BT> earlier mentioned. DD> No, this reasoning does not agree with my position. I believe killing any DD> one person is wrong. The lesser of two evils "problem" is not one I accep DD> Killing is so terrible that a majority of soldiers avoid it. I heard that DD> in World War Two, for instance, a statistic indicated a large percentage o DD> soldiers deliberately shot their guns in a way that they felt would not DD> actually connect with an enemy's body. THis may be true of the Viet Nam W DD> also. Perhaps Froggy could help me out on this discussion about killing DD> being wrong. Froggy, can I cajole you into participating? Or, am I left DD> my own Quaker devices on this one? There are two operational ways to look at this: First: Biblical. God said "Thou shalt not kill." Jesus was also a pacifist, and even though he was tempermental at times. ie. with the moneychangers in the temple. ha always stopped short of actually harming a person. He interjected his body and his power to defend others, and preached to always love and care for, rather than to harm. He interceded for Mary Magdalene, saying that, indeed, she had broken the law and that the earthly punishment was death. However, he operated by the spiritual law, which was that only God, who is perfect, could condemn to death, and not a sinner. He healed the victims of violence all around him, includinf the ear of the centurion in the Garden of Gethsemane, and finally laid down his own life, when he certainly could have saved himself by killing the soldiers who crucified him. But he didn't. He was a pacifist. He told Christians to follow him, and the early Quakers, who were devout, evangelistic Christians, believed that one could not possibly truly follow Christ and kill other people. Second: Real life. It is easy enough to avoid conflict in your own life, but every Quaker has to decide for himself how to deal with these issues in his own life. It becomes more difficult when the issues become more remote. The same person who insists that it is "right" to drop an A-bomb to save a few lives may very well be unable to kill a soldier on the battlefield for the same reason. At some level, he believes the "Thou shalt not kill" message, and is truly a conscientious objector. It is also an issue of social maturity to come to grips with the reality that our remote actions, like registering for the draft, paying taxes to be used for military purposes, and generally just living every day conscious of our society's inclinations toward violence are important. Do we watch, and allow our children to watch violent films and videos? Do we treat other people with kindness and respect, or do we throw a bird at a bad driver on the freeway? How do we feel about issues like killing animals for food, "putting sick pets to sleep," and similar issues. Most Quakers I know live liveswhere most of the answers to questions like these are on the side valuing life. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Lucius Sulla Subject: Re: Enola Gay Date: Mon Sep 02 11:48:19 CDT 1996 Message number: 26 Reply to message number: 23 LS> the original organ that J.S. Bach used and all those gorgeous stained-glass LS> windows that he had stored in deep mines while all the buildings--some dati LS> back to the Carolingian rennaissance--were flattened. The axis conducted th LS> war itself (I'm not talking abour the anti-semetic policies, just the war) LS> more honorably than did the Allies. Killing civilians to weaken national On the other hand, Crystalnacht destroyed a lot of valuable and beloved material possessions, and was perpetrated by the nazis, not the allies. The Russians squirriled a lot of art treasures out of Europe into safety just before the war reached them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Smithsonian Date: Tue Oct 29 17:30:45 CST 1996 Message number: 27 Reply to message number: unavailable The Smothsonian exhibit is down in Saint Paul, has anyone managed to go and see it yet? If so, care to dscreibe what you saw? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Smithsonian Date: Tue Oct 29 18:42:58 CST 1996 Message number: 28 Reply to message number: 27 DR> The Smothsonian exhibit is down in Saint Paul, has anyone managed to go an DR> see it yet? If so, care to dscreibe what you saw? I haven't been able to get there yet, but I am familiar with a lot of it from my days of working at the Smithsonian. It is well worth the trip. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Smithsonian Date: Wed Oct 30 13:31:02 CST 1996 Message number: 29 Reply to message number: 27 DR> The Smothsonian exhibit is down in Saint Paul, has anyone managed to go an DR> see it yet? If so, care to dscreibe what you saw? I get to head down there tomorrow and watch my suburban classmates flash gang-signs at the natives.. So far the teacher's really seem to be going nuts over "Abe lincoln's hat!!", but we'll see. I hear they have metal detectors, when the teacher mentioned this everybody turned and stared at me - it should be interesting to see how it works out. :) (Hey, maybe I'll get a free cavity search!) *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: Smithsonian Date: Wed Oct 30 17:32:08 CST 1996 Message number: 30 Reply to message number: 29 DR> The Smothsonian exhibit is down in Saint Paul, has anyone managed to go an DR> see it yet? If so, care to dscreibe what you saw? BT> BT> I get to head down there tomorrow and watch my suburban classmates flash BT> gang-signs at the natives.. Cool, tell me how it goes. I'll be down at the History Center doing researxh tomorrow morning, myself ... that's real close to the Civic Center, right next to the Cathedral. BT> over "Abe lincoln's hat!!", but we'll see. I hear they have metal detector BT> when the teacher mentioned this everybody turned and stared at me - it shou BT> be interesting to see how it works out. :) (Hey, maybe I'll get a free cav BT> search!) Be sure to wear your spikes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Smithsonian Date: Thu Oct 31 17:12:46 CST 1996 Message number: 31 Reply to message number: 30 DR> Cool, tell me how it goes. I'll be down at the History Center doing resear DR> tomorrow morning, myself ... that's real close to the Civic Center, right n DR> to the Cathedral. This is basically how my whole day went... We went there and it had metal detectors (yay!), so I pause for a moment letting the hush fall apon the crowd of 150 and basked in my own sick glory as all eyes turned to me ... and I proceeded forward into the loudest siren I've ever heard - which a magnificent roar of laughter immediatly followed - one of the voices my own. The lady there tells me to take off my jacket, I do so. I wait a few seconds as they let a lady in a wheel chair by (use the wand!). They say to go through again, I start going back and then a guy (security) stops me and says something to the effect of "Oh no, your not going off that easy" in a your-a- menace-to-society-and-you-just-tried-to-con-us sort of tone, and so I carry my jacket through and of course it beeps again. They just let me go. I'm left somewhat bewildered - wondering why I had to remove my jacket in the first place? Were they just checking for something obvious like a gun holster ... or a fuel-containing backpack pressured flamethrower? For all they knew, my legs could of been covered in throwing knives (we wont go into that), but oh well, I'm on my merry little way. The actual exihibits were somewhat drab I thought, or else I just have a perverse sense of history. Wandering through an endless hallway of dresses, movie memorabilia, and "Real live photos!" just didn't seem very apealing. Then I entertained myself for a few hours just wandering around, having deep discussions with friends on how Christianity, the Occult, Grey Aliens, quantum physics, and time travel all relate. One highlight at the place was the "movie" about intel processors, right at the beginning of the movie they ask you to please not leave because you may be injured (laser show?). No, nothing near as exciting, it was just one long commercial / history lesson. Maybe they meant that as in "if you leave, we'll brake your legs,"? Then later on we went to burger king, I got a small soda for $1 and had six refills. By the fifth I couldn't hold my hand steady and my whole body was shaking. I did what any other red blooded anti-american would do, I went and got another! About ten minutes later the adverse effects started kicking in - namely the strong desire to puke as a result of my body rejecting the sugar and caffeine. (No, I managed to hold it down through the bus ride if your curious.) So eventually I got home and handed out halloween candy to the cute kids - needless to say I had my fill of sweets and didn't want as much as a single skittle. :) So how was everybody elses Halloween? *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: Smithsonian Date: Fri Nov 01 17:44:11 CST 1996 Message number: 32 Reply to message number: 31 BT> place? Were they just checking for something obvious like a gun holster .. BT> or a fuel-containing backpack pressured flamethrower? For all they knew, m BT> legs could of been covered in throwing knives (we wont go into that), but o BT> well, I'm on my merry little way. What could you bring into the place, anyway - a can of paint, to mangle the Apollo capsule or something? A mallet to smash open the glass case and steal the ruby red slippers? Sheesh. BT> The actual exihibits were somewhat drab I thought, or else I just have a BT> perverse sense of history. Wandering through an endless hallway of dresses BT> movie memorabilia, and "Real live photos!" just didn't seem very apealing. That's kind of a bummer, I was hoping for something more. But then again, the Smithsonian is dedicated to a whitewashed version of history. It's actually in their Congressional charter that they must present a patriotic view of history, and it shows ... very little dissent, and an overt appeal to the entertainment side of public history. BT> So how was everybody elses Halloween? I sat downstairs and did homework, working on a book review. Then I watched Babylon 5. Woo-hoo. I have no life anymore. This is really depressing. BTW, my web page has a few pictures up on it now. They'll work pretty well to keep the rats away ... http://www.hamline.edu/~erschime/pix.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: Smithsonian Date: Mon Nov 04 16:56:07 CST 1996 Message number: 33 Reply to message number: 31 BT> So how was everybody elses Halloween? I did last minute homework. Mostly lab write-ups for physics. My Mother forgot to buy candy so my family turned the lights off and they stayed in the basement. Boring. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Smithsonian Date: Tue Nov 05 17:16:45 CST 1996 Message number: 34 Reply to message number: 32 DR> That's kind of a bummer, I was hoping for something more. Well, maybe somebody that's kinder on these types of science exhibits offer an opposing opinion, anyone? DR> BTW, my web page has a few pictures up on it now. They'll work pretty wel DR> keep the rats away ... http://www.hamline.edu/~erschime/pix.html Pictures don't show up on Lynx, oh well.. :) *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Specter Subject: Re: Smithsonian Date: Tue Nov 05 17:17:28 CST 1996 Message number: 35 Reply to message number: 33 S> I did last minute homework. Mostly lab write-ups for physics. My Mother S> forgot to buy candy so my family turned the lights off and they stayed in th S> basement. Boring. My friends went door to door asking for potatoes. They got 27! *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: Smithsonian Date: Tue Nov 05 17:31:35 CST 1996 Message number: 36 Reply to message number: 35 BT> My friends went door to door asking for potatoes. They got 27! BT> I once went door to door with a wine glass. Lost count of how many I got. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SPECTER To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: Smithsonian Date: Wed Nov 06 16:55:14 CST 1996 Message number: 37 Reply to message number: 35 BT> My friends went door to door asking for potatoes. They got 27! I have but one word. Score! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: Church & State Date: Wed Nov 06 17:39:43 CST 1996 Message number: 38 Reply to message number: unavailable From: Charles Sumner To: Chstate@ecunet.org Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 23:45:00 Subject: [chstate] Myth 1 Constitution. It is true that the literal phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but that does not mean the concept isn't there. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." What does that mean? A little history is helpful: In an 1802 letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson, then president, declared that the American people through the First Amendment had erected a "wall of separation between church and state." (Colonial religious liberty pioneer Roger Williams used a similar phrase 150 years earlier.) Jefferson, however, was not the only leading figure of the post-revolutionary period to use the term separation. James Madison, considered to be the Father of the Constitution, said in an 1819 letter, "[T]he number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church and state." In an earlier, undated essay (probably early 1800s), Madison wrote, "Strongly guarded...is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." As eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer notes in his book, Church, State and Freedom, "It is true, of course, that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution. But it was inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American people....[T]he right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial' is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that 'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including 'separation of church and state,' have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles." Thus, it is entirely appropriate to speak of the "constitutional principle of church-state separation" since that phrase summarizes what the First Amendment's religion clauses do - they separate church and state. Provided by Americans United for Separation of Church and State 1816 Jefferson Place NW, Washington, DC 20036-2505; 202-466-3234. --------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, send just the word unsubscribe in the body of a note to chstate-request@ecunet.org --------------------------------------------------------------- ... Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (S)lap nearest innocent bystander. ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Big Teebo Subject: Re: Smithsonian Date: Thu Nov 07 16:07:02 CST 1996 Message number: 39 Reply to message number: 34 DR> BTW, my web page has a few pictures up on it now. They'll work pretty wel DR> keep the rats away ... http://www.hamline.edu/~erschime/pix.html BT> BT> Pictures don't show up on Lynx, oh well.. :) Then don't use Lynx. Actually, I use Lynx quite a bit ... but some things just don't show up well in plain old text. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARING DIANE J. To: DAEDALUS RISING Subject: Re: Smithsonian Date: Fri Nov 08 05:01:24 CST 1996 Message number: 40 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Daedalus Rising to All <=- DR> The Smothsonian exhibit is down in Saint Paul, has anyone managed to DR> go and see it yet? If so, care to dscreibe what you saw? I haven't gone to it, but as I am now working part-time in the paleontology hall at the Science Museum, I can tell you that many folks are coming over to the Science Museum because they're in downtown St. Paul for the Smith- sonian temporary exhibit. One older couple shuddered when they told me that it was terribly crowded in the Smithsonian exhibit and that they much pre- ferred the Science Museum because they didn't bump into people. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARING DIANE J. To: FROGGY Subject: Halloweeen Fun Date: Fri Nov 08 05:01:25 CST 1996 Message number: 41 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Froggy to Big Teebo <=- BT> My friends went door to door asking for potatoes. They got 27! BT> Fr> I once went door to door with a wine glass. Lost count of Fr> how many I got. Har-de-har-har! Do you mean you got more wine glasses, potatoes in your wine glass, or fill-ups? And what kind of costume did you wear? Gosh, Froggy, how old were you--and what year was that? Which community? Do you think someone could do it again without alot of flak? ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daring Diane J. Subject: Re: Halloweeen Fun Date: Fri Nov 08 07:57:05 CST 1996 Message number: 42 Reply to message number: 41 DD> Fr> I once went door to door with a wine glass. Lost count of DD> Fr> how many I got. DD> DD> Har-de-har-har! Do you mean you got more wine glasses, potatoes in your DD> wine glass, or fill-ups? And what kind of costume did you wear? DD> DD> Gosh, Froggy, how old were you--and what year was that? Which community? DD> Do you think someone could do it again without alot of flak? I was a very obvious and visible 30-ish married woman towing along my husband, who also had HIS wine glass. We were in the greater St. Paul area. It would be fairly easy to do what we did again. We were selective about which houses we hit on, and went out of our way to go to "certain" peoples' house. We only accepted liquid offerings. :) Since most of my friends knew I had a penchant for dry white wine, there was a lot of Blue Nun around. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Daring Diane J. Subject: Re: Smithsonian Date: Fri Nov 08 10:18:06 CST 1996 Message number: 43 Reply to message number: 40 DD> DR> The Smothsonian exhibit is down in Saint Paul, has anyone managed to DD> DR> go and see it yet? If so, care to dscreibe what you saw? DD> DD> I haven't gone to it, but as I am now working part-time in the paleontology DD> hall at the Science Museum, I can tell you that many folks are coming over DD> to the Science Museum because they're in downtown St. Paul for the Smith- DD> sonian temporary exhibit. Have you ever been to the History Center a few blocks away? I know I had never heard of it before this fall, but it's really a pretty neat place. It reminds me a lot of the science museum, except that only part of the (huge) structure is devoted to actual exhibits. It's another one of those kind of places you could spend all day looking around ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: REV. THORN To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Smithsonian Date: Sat Nov 09 11:02:39 CST 1996 Message number: 44 Reply to message number: 27 DR> The Smothsonian exhibit is down in Saint Paul, has anyone managed to go an DR> see it yet? If so, care to dscreibe what you saw? my mom's been working at it, as security/crowd hording personell. or something. she wasn't impressed by it -- but then, she's seen the actual smithsoanian museamthang. sure! aaron ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARING DIANE J. To: DAEDALUS RISING Subject: Re: Smithsonian Date: Mon Nov 11 17:12:34 CST 1996 Message number: 45 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Daedalus Rising to Daring Diane J. <=- DR> Have you ever been to the History Center a few blocks away? I know I Yes. I used to work there. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Daring Diane J. Subject: Re: Smithsonian Date: Tue Nov 12 02:41:14 CST 1996 Message number: 46 Reply to message number: 45 DD> DR> Have you ever been to the History Center a few blocks away? I know I DD> DD> Yes. I used to work there. Mind if I ask what you did there? Seems like kind of a stuffy place, I can't imagine working there for long without lots and lots fo caffeine :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: STARFOX To: Big Teebo Subject: Lynux Date: Thu Nov 14 12:17:18 CST 1996 Message number: 47 Reply to message number: unavailable Hi Big Teebo, hope you are having a nice day 05-Nov-96 23:16:00, Big Teebo wrote to Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Smithsonian DR>> That's kind of a bummer, I was hoping for something more. BT> Well, maybe somebody that's kinder on these types of science exhibits BT> offer an opposing opinion, anyone? DR>> BTW, my web page has a few pictures up on it now. They'll work pretty BT> wel DR>> keep the rats away ... http://www.hamline.edu/~erschime/pix.html BT> Pictures don't show up on Lynx, oh well.. :) Do you use a lynx server named "Freenet"? -=> Yours sincerely, Nic Boie <=- --- Terminate 4.00/Pro ž TerMail/QWK ž When did you TERMINATE your old terminal program ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BIG TEEBO To: Starfox Subject: Re: Lynux Date: Thu Nov 14 13:37:19 CST 1996 Message number: 48 Reply to message number: 47 S> Do you use a lynx server named "Freenet"? I use Lynx whereever there's unix.. Yeah, that can include the Freenet, why? *teebo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARING DIANE J. To: DAEDALUS RISING Subject: Re: Minn. History Center Date: Wed Nov 20 17:00:12 CST 1996 Message number: 49 Reply to message number: unavailable -=> Quoting Daedalus Rising to Daring Diane J. <=- DD> DR> Have you ever been to the History Center a few blocks away? I know I DD> DD> Yes. I used to work there. DR> Mind if I ask what you did there? Seems like kind of a stuffy place, DR> I can't imagine working there for long without lots and lots fo DR> caffeine :) I worked first as a volunteer greeter at the "Welcome Wagon" halfway along the main entrance corridor, by the glass windows of the restaurant. Needing more of a challenge, I moved up to more responsibility being a receptionist at the information desk, located across the rotunda floor from the museum store. I answered phones and gave out information to visitors and others using the building. I once even got in a truck making a delivery to the exhibit de- partment, directing the driver on the exceptionally convoluted route necessary to get his load up to the loading dock. The building is not user friendly, is poorly designed for the users and visitors, so I felt like I helped a lot by beilng a caring person willing to go the extra mile to make a confusing place understandable. That was a volunteer position, too. Earlier, I had a few hours of work as a opinion researcher intercepting people at public places in downtown St. Paul for their attitudes about a new exhibit the History Center was planning. That was a paid position. Back in 1982, I worked as a guide for the Society at their farm in Elk River. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: Daring Diane J. Subject: Re: Minn. History Center Date: Wed Nov 20 18:46:06 CST 1996 Message number: 50 Reply to message number: 49 DD> The building is not user friendly, DD> is poorly designed for the users and visitors, But at least it looks real pretty. That's the important thing, right? DD> places in downtown St. Paul for their attitudes about a new exhibit the DD> History Center was planning. That was a paid position. Back in 1982, I Which exhibit was that, praytell? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DARING DIANE J. To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Minn. History Center Date: Wed Jan 22 09:39:49 CST 1997 Message number: 51 Reply to message number: 50 I did potential audience research for the Communities exhibit. The museum wanted to know what people thought constituted a community. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: C&S 1st amd Date: Fri Feb 07 11:48:20 CST 1997 Message number: 52 Reply to message number: unavailable Subject: [chstate] Colonial America PART 1 The following vignettes are provided for use with our organizational name if possible; however, you may use them without it if preferred. These might be used in church newsletters or on bulletin boards. CELEBRATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS 1. PRESIDENT THOMAS JEFFERSON'S VIEWS ON GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED PRAYERS As President, Thomas Jefferson declined to recommend a day of fasting and prayer because he felt that to do so would be an unwarranted government encroachment on religion. In a letter written in 1808 to Reverend Samuel Miller, a Presbyterian minister, Jefferson explained, "Fasting and prayer are religious exercise; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the Constitution has deposited it." We are fortunate in America to have a government not hostile to religion. We are free to proclaim our religion and to practice it without any interference from government. Let's continue to preserve that right by supporting the First Amendment guarantees of no establishment of religion and freedom of religion. CELEBRATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS 2. THE RESULTS OF ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION At the time of the American Revolution, the Church of England was the established church in Virginia and all residents were taxed for its support. Between 1768 and 1777 some 83 Baptist preachers in Virginia suffered persecution, 44 of them serving prison terms. Their only crime was preaching the Gospel without a license. With the passage of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution all the people in our nation became free to practice their religion or not without government compulsion. The first words of the Bill of Rights promise that no tax dollars will be extracted from the people for the purpose of supporting a religious establishment. Let's keep it that way! CELEBRATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS 3. COLONIAL CONNECTICUT Because of the First Amendment to the Constitution we enjoy religious liberty. We may worship God as conscience dictates, or we may may choose not to be religious. Government has no authority over our consciences. It was not this way in the Connecticut Colony. A justice of the peace fined two young girls five shillings each "because on the Lord's Day during divine services they did smile." Did you smile in church? Did you attend church? Remember what preserves your religious liberty. The principle is called separation of church and state. It is embodied in the First Amendment. Help preserve it. CELEBRATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS 4. MASSACHUSETTS BAY COLONY By 1692 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony more than 200 people had been accused of being witches. Thirty-two people were put to death. The power of the government was used to enforce religious orthodoxy. Giles Corey would not plead guilty. He was pressed to death by weights. Be thankful that you have as your protection the First Amendment to the Constitution. It was not available to Giles Corey in 1692. Keep church and state separate and free; it's best for both. CELEBRATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS 5. MINISTERS IN THE COLONY OF VIRGINIA In America today you may belong to one of several hundred religions without interference from the government. It was not like this in colonial America. In Virginia the law required you to attend Anglican worship once a month or be fined. Non-Anglican ministers had to be licensed by the state. Those who defied the law were arrested and convicted. Some were fined. Many more were imprisoned. A Separate Baptist minister was jailed four times; another was imprisoned for five months. It took many years for the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty to become law. It became the forerunner to the First Amendment to the Constitution, which provides us with protection. The principle was called by Thomas Jefferson separation of church and state. Celebrate the Bill of Rights. Help preserve its principles. CELEBRATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS 6. VIRGINIA'S "TAX FOR RELIGION" As a result of the Great Awakening and immigration, by the 1770's the colony of Virginia no longer had a majority of Anglicans. So when Patrick Henry proposed his "General Assessment Bill" it would have taxed all citizens to fund "teachers of the Christian religion" of the major faiths, not just the Anglican. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson opposed the bill and saw that it was defeated. However, it took seven years for them to muster enough support for the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty to get it passed. Its principles were incorporated in the First Amendment to the Constitution, which today gives you protection against being taxed to support religions. The principle was called by Jefferson "separation of church and state." It has served us well. Help preserve the First Amendment. CELEBRATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS 7. OLD NEW YORK In the colony of New Amsterdam (now known as New York City) the son of a Dutch Reformed minister was appointed governor. His name was Peter Stuyvesant. One of his first acts was to proclaim that "no other religion shall be publicly admitted in New Netherlands except the Reformed." Jews, Quakers and Lutherans were vigorously persecuted. The First Amendment has protected us from such treatment for over 200 years. Religious liberty is a precious heritage. However, it can be diminished or lost if the public is not aware of the historical background. Help preserve the religious liberty clauses of the First Amendment. Become informed. CELEBRATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS 8. MARRIAGES IN VIRGINIA For many years in the colony of Virginia marriages could be performed ONLY by an Anglican clergyman. You could be married unofficially by your own minister, but you had to go to the Anglican church to make it official. In nine of the thirteen colonies there were established churches. This meant that these churches had preferential treatment by government, often receiving tax funds. The reason we enjoy religious liberty today is because the first words of the First Amendment promise us no establishment of religion and free exercise of religion. The principle was called by Thomas Jefferson "separation of church and state." Will we preserve the First Amendment? Not unless we are alert to transgressions against it. Americans United for Separation of Church and State 1816 Jefferson Place NW, Washington, DC 20036 Provided by Rochester Chapter http://www.frontiernet.net/~ldecours/au TO BE CONTINUED --------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, send just the word unsubscribe in the body of a note to chstate-request@ecunet.org --------------------------------------------------------------- ... "So now it ends." -- The Kurgan ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: C&S 1st Amd Date: Fri Feb 07 11:48:21 CST 1997 Message number: 53 Reply to message number: unavailable Subject: [chstate] Colonial America, Part 2 Part 2 CELEBRATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS 9. RELIGIOUS TOLERATION IN MARYLAND The colony of Maryland under a Roman Catholic, Lord Baltimore, is well known for the Toleration Act of 1649, which provided a degree of religious liberty unusual for the new world. Not everyone is aware that even here religious liberty did not apply to Unitarians or Jews. A fine, public whipping or imprisonment could be imposed upon evangelists or anyone speaking with disrespect about the Virgin Mary. Toleration ceased in 1655 when Puritans suspended the Toleration Act to be able to make second-class citizens of Anglicans, Quakers, Baptists and Catholics. Separation of church and state was a welcome feature of the new Constitution as embodied in the First Amendment. It brought religious peace. Finally in 1826 Jews and Unitarians achieved equal status with other religions. Religious freedom is a precious heritage. Help preserve the First Amendment. CELEBRATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS 10. WILLIAM PENN'S TOLERATION Pennsylvania under William Penn was one of the most tolerant of the American colonies. Roman Catholic churches could be built, but no schools. No Catholic could hold public office. It took many years of oppression before the principle of separation of church and state put Catholics on equal footing with others. That principle was developed by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson and embodied in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." We must guard the First Amendment and be certain that government does not try to make some religions second class. Religious liberty is a precious heritage. CELEBRATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS 11. THE PURITAN ESTABLISHMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS Many Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony came to this country because they found that they could not worship according to their consciences in the Church of England. However, it took 203 years before they relinquished the position as the established church of Massachusetts in 1833. Everyone was taxed to support the Puritan church until 1711. To be a Freeman of the colony you had to belong to the right church. In 1636 they drove out a certain troublemaker named Roger Williams. Established churches were a European heritage. We found a better way which is fair to all. Help preserve this liberty. Celebrate the First Amendment. CELEBRATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS 12. PATRICK HENRY IGNORES CRIES OF "TREASON" December 15, 1763, Hanover County, Virginia. A virtually unknown young lawyer, Patrick Henry, ignored sharp cries of "Treason! treason!" in Hanover County Court as he denounced in passionate tones the meddling of King George the Third and pointed with an accusing finger at the state-supported clergy of the established church. Ordinarily the clergy of the established church received their salary from the state in tobacco, but the price of tobacco soared in 1758 due to an anticipated crop failure. The Virginia Legislature voted to give the ministers their salaries in currency at a rate below the market value of tobacco. The ministers appealed to the King, who disallowed the act. In a test case first brought to the courts in April of 1762, the clergy sued for the remainder of their 1758 salaries. The jury ruled the act of 1758 invalid in view of the King's edict, but it awarded the clergymen damages of only one penny. The so-called "Parson's Cause" marked a turn in the affairs of Virginia and the Colonies. It dramatized the potential evils of church-state union. This helped to bring about a climate in which the people of the Virginia colony supported the idea of religious liberty for all the people. Let's keep the First Amendment in letter and in spirit. CELEBRATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS 13. BAPTIST DISSENTERS IN LYNN, MASSACHUSETTS BAY COLONY, 1651 John Clark, Obediah Holmes, and Reverend Crandall visited William Whittier, one of the Baptist dissenters today. While they were conducting a service of worship on the Lord's Day, a constable stormed into the house with a warrant, arresting "three erroneous persons" and placed them in jail. The men were given the choice of paying heavy fines or being whipped. Holmes and Clark chose the whipping. Someone paid Clark's fine, but Holmes refused help, saying to accept it would admit a wrongdoing. Thirty strokes with heavy leather lashes left his back and shoulders a bloody mass of quivering flesh. When the whipping stopped two women rushed to his side and said, "God bless you." For this they were hustled off to jail. We enjoy freedom of worship and think it is our privilege to do so, but it was not like this in America 345 years ago. Help celebrate the First Amendment. Americans United for Separation of Church and State 1816 Jefferson Place NW, Washington, DC 20036 Provided by Rochester Chapter http://www.frontiernet.net/~ldecours/au --------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, send just the word unsubscribe in the body of a note to chstate-request@ecunet.org --------------------------------------------------------------- ... Real men don't beat women. ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: more C&S [1/2] Date: Fri Feb 07 11:48:22 CST 1997 Message number: 54 Reply to message number: unavailable >>> Part 1 of 2... ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ A Critique of David Barton's "America's Godly Heritage" Written by the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs representing twelve Baptist denominations David Barton has a tape entitled "America's Godly Heritage" in which he argues that America is a "Christian Nation," legally and historically. He also asserts that, through our dedication to the principle of church-state separation, we have systematically ruled religion out of the public arena, particularly the public school system. This is not a new argument, but Barton is especially slick in his presentation. His well-oiled, rapid-fire sentences have just enough ring of truth to make him credible to a large number of people. However, the presentation is laced with exaggerations, half-truths, and misstatements of fact, and his citation to supporting research is scant at best and non-existent in other places. This is a short critique of some of Mr. Barton's major points. 1. Barton claims that 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were "orthodox evangelical Christians." Barton does not cite any authority to support this assertion. Indeed the weight of scholarly opinion is to the contrary. For example, Professor Clinton Rossiter has written: Although it had its share of strenuous Christians ... the gathering at Philadelphia was largely made up of men in whom the old fires were under control or had even flickered out. Most were nominally members of one of the traditional churches in their part of the country ... and most were men who could take their religion or leave it alone. Although no one in this sober gathering would have dreamed of invoking the Goddess of Reason, neither would anyone have dared to proclaim his opinions had the support of the God of Abraham and Paul. The Convention of 1787 was highly rationalist and even secular in spirit. (Clinton Rossiter, 1787: The Grand Convention, pp. 147-148) Much has been made of Benjamin Franklin's suggestion that the Convention open its morning sessions with prayer. But his motion was turned down. Franklin himself noted that "with the exception of 3 or 4, most thought prayers unnecessary." (Ferrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, rev. ed., Vol. 1, p. 452.) While there can be little doubt that Christian values shaped the thinking of the Founders to a significant extent, it is wrong to jump to the conclusion that the Founders were almost all "orthodox evangelical Christians." Even though many of the Founders applauded religion for its utility-- believing religion was good for the country-- they also argued vigorously for voluntary religion and complete religious freedom. This even if Barton's point were true, it doesn't compel the conclusion that we should privilege Christianity in any legal or constitutional sense. 2. Barton tells a long story about George Washington during the French and Indian War that he says was in "every textbook" during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The story is about how George Washington's clothing was riddled with bullets but he was miraculously saved. He allegedly prayed after the battle and wrote a letter claiming God's protection of him during battle. Barton says that these kinds of stories are excluded from our textbooks today. There are many reasons why one might not want to include that story in an American history textbook, but the possibility of violating the Constitution is not one of them. Clearly, in the course of teaching "about religion," or teaching history for that matter, there is no problem talking about the incident or the fact that Washington prayed or even reading his letter. As a matter of educational strategy, however, it is at least debatable whether this story is of sufficient importance to warrant inclusion in the curriculum. 3. Barton makes much from a statement attributed to John Quincy Adams to the effect that the principles of Christianity and civil government form an "indissoluble bond." Again, it cannot seriously be disputed that most of the Founders thought that religion was good for the country. Martin Marty talks about how the Founders recognized the "utility" of religion much like other public utilities (e.g., waterworks, gasworks, etc.) (Martin E. Marty, "The Church in Tension," Speech to 20th National Religious Liberty Conference, Baptist Joint Committee, Oct. 7, 1986; see also William Lee Miller, The First Liberty, pp. 245-246.) Even today public officials try to baptize their political aims in the waters of sacred approval. Of course, this ignores the fact that true Christianity serves as much a prophetic function as a pastoral one. Christianity does not exist to prop up government or a particular regime but to critique it and call it to judgement. In any case, one wonders whether Barton really wants to embrace John Quincy Adams. According to John McCollister, "some members of the organized church branded [Adams] as an atheist" and there was no evidence that the Bible was used at the time he took the oath of office. His church attendance was irregular at times. He, like his father, was a Unitarian. (John McCollister, So Help Me God, pp. 41-43.) 4. Barton lauds the use of the New England Primer (1690), which he says was studied by all the Founding Fathers." He laments the fact that public school textbooks today do not contain the explicitly sectarian references and teachings that the New England Primer had. For a century and a half after its first publication, of course, there were no public schools. There was no Bill of Rights until 1792-- over 100 years after the Primer's publication. During the Primer's remaining life, the Bill of Rights had not been applied to the states. Thus, its usage in colonial times does not argue for its usage today. Also, just because the Founders were instructed in a certain way as children does not rule out the possibility that they would want to exclude such sectarian religious instruction from state-supported schools in their new nation. Nevertheless, the New England Primer can be "studied about" in our history classes today to the extent that it was a widely used textbook that shaped our culture. 5. Barton says that John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, desired that we should "select and prefer Christians" for public office. There are many things wrong with trying to leverage this statement into something more meaningful than it really is. First, while voters can choose their candidates for any reason they deem fit, the Constitution explicitly disallows any official religious test for public office (Article VI). In fact, this is the only place that the Constitution even mentions religion. George Washington himself, in a personal letter to a church in Baltimore, penned the words which dispute Jay's ideas: "... a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest offices that are known in the United States." (Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States, Vol 1. p. 497.) John Jay remained Chief Justice for only six years and then left to be the governor of New York. Jay was an anti-Catholic bigot and, while governor, led an unsuccessful movement to banish Catholics from New York. (Thomas J. Curry, The First Freedoms, p. 162.) Apparently, Jay did not even believe in religious toleration, let alone full-blown religious freedom. Is this the kind of approach we want to take in our pluralistic society today? Can we really hold up Jay's notions of church-state relations as an ideal? 6. Barton quotes at length from George Washington's Farewell Address extolling the salutary effect that religion has on politics and civil government. Barton says we have ruled the study of Washington's Farewell Address out of the public schools too. Washington no doubt firmly believed that religion is good for government. And, there is nothing wrong with studying his Farewell Address in the public school system. But other statements of Washington should also be studied, to give a more complete picture of what Washington truly believed. For example, in response to concerns expressed by the United Baptist Churches of Virginia about what they saw as the threat of the Federal government to religious liberty, Washington wrote the following: [I]f I could now conceive that the general government night ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. ... [E]very man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience. (Stokes, supra. p. 495.) Washington expresses a similar sentiment in a letter to another religious group, this time a Jewish congregation: All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. ... [T]he Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. (Stokes, supra. p. 862.) Thus, while Washington (and many of the other Founders, as we have already noted) may have recognized the benefits of religion for the state, he clearly believed persons religious preferences were a matter of individual choice in which the government should not interfere. 7. Barton cites a study by the University of Houston political science professors who assembled 15,000 writings of the Founders. The researchers somehow selected 3,154 that they "felt had a significant impact." Once these were studied, according to Barton, the researchers concluded that 34 percent of all the quotes of the Founders were from the Bible and another 60 percent quoted >>> Continued to next message... ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: more C&S [2/2] Date: Fri Feb 07 11:48:23 CST 1997 Message number: 55 Reply to message number: unavailable >>> Part 2 of 2... men who "used the Bible," e.g., Blackstone, Montesquieu, and John Locke. From this, Barton boldly concludes: "94 percent of all quotes of the Founders are based on the Bible." This begs a dozen questions. How did the researchers select the 15,000 writings, and how did they cull out 3,154? What were the criteria? Does a short biblical allusion in a length document qualify the whole document as a part of the "34 percent"? Does the 60 percent figure only include direct quotes or does it include any quote of a person who was felt to have been generally influenced by Christianity? Time and time again Barton leaps to the categorical conclusion that "94 percent of the quotes of all the Founders are based on the Bible"-- a good example of the kind of exaggeration and overstatement that he engages in repeatedly. 8. Barton sees express Biblical support for our tripartite system of government. He says that the doctrine of separation of powers comes "directly out of the Bible," citing Isaiah 33:22: "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our ruler, the Lord is our king; he will save us." He also references Jeremiah 17. We find nothing making this connection. None of the Founders referenced those passages in their writings on the separation of powers. The only similarity is that in the Isaiahic "salvation oracle," the writer refers to the Lord in three different ways. If anything, these references invoke the concept of monarchy-- an idea expressly rejected by the Framers. Moreover, one can read Jeremiah 17 without seeing any connection at all, and we find none in the research. Most scholarship attributes the genesis of the separation of powers to Montesquieu and Locke. 9. Mr. Barton cites the Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892), for the proposition that this is "emphatically a Christian nation". He says Justice Brewer cites 87 precedents to proves this point. Holy Trinity involved the legality of a contract to hire a minister from England under an act of Congress limiting immigration. The statement about a "Christian nation" is dicta-- that is, it is a gratuitous statement that is not essential to the Court's holding. The Court had already decided the issue before venturing its opinion as to the religious character of the country. The so-called "87 precedents" were not case decisions but mainly examples of our undisputed religious roots from pre-Constitutional documents, historical practice, colonial charters and the like. There can be not doubt that we are a "religious people." Even Justice William O. Douglas, a thorough-going separationist, recognized this fact. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 313 (1952). However, that is not the same thing as declaring that Christianity has been legally privileged or established to the exclusion of other religions or to the exclusion of irreligion. Moreover, the Constitution, which is our civil compact, is decidedly non-sectarian and, as we have noted, mentions religion only to disallow religious tests for public office. To the degree that Brewer's opinion can be read to support a "Christian nation" thesis, it is a legal anomaly that has been cited by the Court only once. Therefore, Barton's citation of it fails to prove his point. TO BE CONTINUED For additional information join us: Americans United for Separation of Church and State 1816 Jefferson Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 202.466.3234 202.466.2587 fax E-mail: americansunited@au.org WWW site: http://www.netplexgroup.com/americansunited/ ... I call things as I see them; If I didn't see them, I make them up! ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: even more C&S Date: Fri Feb 07 11:48:24 CST 1997 Message number: 56 Reply to message number: unavailable ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Get the government off our backs! In addition to religion and the religious upbringing of children (such as prayer in school), there is another arena of the American family's life that should be immunized from government interference. That is the right to a medical and personal decision about abortion. There are many circumstances which a woman and her physician must consider when the question of abortion is considered. The government has no right to step in without considering the family's individual situation and the possible medical necessity for an abortion. Why should legislators sitting in Washington have the right to interfere in the private life of a woman? Why should they be able to interfere in a medical decision? Many major religious faiths support the right of reproductive choice. The majority of the populace also have indicated their support of that right. It is a religious minority which stridently opposes abortion under any circumstances. Yet the Christian Coalition proposes to amend the Constitution to allow the government to tell Americans that they may not have an abortion. What could be more inappropriate, more radically intrusive? That is why the Christian Coalition's proposals are anything but conservative; they represent nothing less than a radical intrusion of big brother government into the American family's religious life. Do not fall for the Religious Right's propaganda. Do not refer to them as "prolife." They are antichoice. I am prolife. I do not favor abortion. But I do respect the right of the individual to make a decision which has a profound impact for some 20 years or more. PRO-CHOICE - PRO-CHILD --- PRO-RELIGIOUS LIBERTY! ... Keep church & state separate and free! --------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, send just the word unsubscribe in the body of a note to chstate-request@ecunet.org --------------------------------------------------------------- ... Shi'ite happens! ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: All Subject: Rondo Date: Thu May 01 12:19:44 CDT 1997 Message number: 57 Reply to message number: unavailable I got an award for the Rondo project I worked on, "best history essay". For those of you with web access, it's online at: http://www.hamline.edu/~erschime/rondo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FROGGY To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Rondo Date: Thu May 01 13:55:17 CDT 1997 Message number: 58 Reply to message number: 57 DR> I got an award for the Rondo project I worked on, "best history essay". Fo DR> those of you with web access, it's online at: DR> DR> http://www.hamline.edu/~erschime/rondo Yea!, Howdy!! Three Cheers for Daed! Huzza, Huzza, Huzza! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SANDMAN To: ALL Subject: History of... Date: Fri May 02 17:13:18 CDT 1997 Message number: 59 Reply to message number: unavailable Ä Area: Skeptic ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ From: Sheppard Gordon Read: Yes Replied: No Subj: A Delusion of Satan ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Neighbourhood witch `One 80-year-old man had his wife committed to the gallows for casting spells and spoiling his prayers.' Village life in New England, 1692 08/11/96 The London Observer A DELUSION OF SATAN: THE FULL STORY OF THE SALEM WITCH TRIALS by Frances Hill Salem, Massachusetts was named for the Hebrew word shalom, meaning peace, but few christenings could have been more inauspicious. In 1692, the people of Salem Village imprisoned over a hundred of their neighbours and executed 19 of them in the most infamous witch-hunt in history. But even before the witch trials, Salem Village was a difficult place to grow up. Separated from the prosperous port town by rivers and inlets, a two to three-hour walk, the village offered little diversion from work save five hours of worship on Sunday in the unheated church. Boys could hunt and fish, but girls had fewer amusements in a place where they did not even have schools. Only in their food, mixing flavours (venison with maple syrup) and drinking spirits, did the Puritans find life sweet. In The Scarlet Letter (1850), Nathaniel Hawthorne, the descendant of a leading magistrate in the witch trials, described the Salem children as `disporting themselves in such grim fashion as the puritanic nature would permit; playing at going to church, perchance; or at scourging Quakers; or taking scalps in a sham-fight with the Indians'. Even when Arthur Miller visited Salem in 1952 to research his masterpiece, The Crucible, the town was `morose and secret', bypassed by industry, `dripping in the cold black drizzle like some abandoned dog'. Centuries after the trials, the town was still embarrassed about what had happened; only after the triumph of Miller's play did they set up the Witch Trail, signs showing where various citizens had been arrested, interrogated, or hanged. In 1692, only 550 people lived in Salem Village, and yet, as Frances Hill's precise and timely study shows, they could not get along. Her narrative of Salem's tensions and quarrels reminded me of the night I spent some years ago in tiny Ten Sleep, Wyoming, pop. 300. `What is it like to live in Ten Sleep?' I asked the teenage waitress at the one cafe. `It's okay,' she said, `if you're in with the right crowd.' Historians have exposed Salem's political and economic in-fighting, its clerical rivalries, its family feuds. Hill points out that `the village's lack of legal or religious authority to settle internal disputes meant that all conflicts remained unresolved and became increasingly vicious'. Moreover, other kinds of dysfunction made the small community a crucible of hatreds, jealousies, fears, and frustrations. New England villages rarely kept slaves, but Salem had at least one slave couple, Caribbean Indians named Tituba and John Indian. Hill notes that the official census also left out the homeless -- homeless in a tiny village of the devout. Many families had disinherited their children; many children did not live with their parents. Despite (or because of) Puritan injunctions against lust and immorality, there were outbursts of scandal. Martha Corey, one of the elderly accused witches, had given birth in her youth to an illegitimate mulatto child. Husbands denounced wives. Sarah Good's husband told the town magistrates that she was a witch or would be one very quickly. She was arrested and hanged. Eighty-year-old Giles Corey accused his wife for casting spells on him and spoiling his prayers; she died on the gallows. In The Crucible, probably the most influential, and certainly the most profound, analysis of Salem's motives, Miller dramatises the sexual repression and transgression that fuelled hysteria. `Had there been no tinder of guilt to set aflame,' he writes in his autobiography Timebends, `had the cult and culture of repression not ruled so tightly, no outbreak would have been possible.' The play imagines that John Proctor, married to the cold Elizabeth, has an illicit affair with the teenage Abigail; Abigail's vengeance and Proctor's guilt determine their behaviour. Frances Hill sees a more complex psychological reality in the girls who had fits, screamed out, twisted their limbs, and spat blood as well as in the community's willingness to accuse women of witchcraft. The real Abigail, she points out, was only 11; but the `bewitched' Salem girls were clearly `performing hysterics', frightened and emotionally vulnerable at first, but then swept up in the dramas of attention and interrogation. More subtle forces than misogyny must have accounted for their accusations against other women. The most provocative, although peripheral, theme of Delusion of Satan is the analogy between the Salem witch trials and the contemporary furore over satanic ritual abuse. Miller himself used Salem as an analogy for McCarthyism, though in It Could Happen Here and Did (1967) he warned: `If The Crucible is still alive, it can hardly be due to any analogy with McCarthyism The bulk of the audiences, for example, in the British National Theatre are too young to have known McCarthyism, and England is not a hysterical country.' Hill views the hysterias over recovered memory and satanic sex abuse as American exports, produced by the puritan zeal of the religious Right, and the political correctness of the Left. English journalists and psychologists have also denounced the recent unsubstantiated charges of satanic ritual abuse as a form of `American social disease', having a `rocky transatlantic journey'. Yet, as Bryan Appleyard argued in the Independent in 1994 (`Who the devil shall we blame?'), `Satan was always a metaphor for what is inside, not what is outside'. Frances Hill also maintains that the notion of witchcraft in Salem came directly from England. Some historians have seen Tituba, a West Indian woman, as the culprit, but if the village girls played at casting charms, they used methods found in English folklore, not Caribbean voodoo. The Puritan theocracy survived the Atlantic voyage, and bequeathed to the New World its ancient, perhaps universal, tendencies to `separate evil from good and place evil outside the self, and outside the group, in the enemy'. Such impulses, Hill concludes, `lurk in us all'. English or American, until we can accept the truth, we have not outlived Salem's dark legacy. ... Don't blame me, I voted for Gowron. ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 [NR] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: THE INVISIBLE MAN To: Daedalus Rising Subject: Re: Rondo Date: Sat May 17 03:37:55 CDT 1997 Message number: 60 Reply to message number: 57 DR> I got an award for the Rondo project I worked on, "best history essay". Fo DR> those of you with web access, it's online at: DR> DR> http://www.hamline.edu/~erschime/rondo Ah, quite good. BTW about the Goya exhibit, is it possible to see his paintings electronically? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAEDALUS RISING To: The Invisible Man Subject: Re: Rondo Date: Sun May 18 17:49:45 CDT 1997 Message number: 61 Reply to message number: 60 DR> http://www.hamline.edu/~erschime/rondo TI> TI> Ah, quite good. BTW about the Goya exhibit, is it possible to see his TI> paintings electronically? Yes, call up my Goya site and follow the links: http://www.hamline.edu/~erschime/goya