All posts in the topic Yes, Miss Marks, we have a superior culture. (Short link)
Summary
- There are 22 posts — by 11 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Andy Driscoll at Dec 06 23:08 UTC
Miss Marks wrote:
> It happened thusly: Bachmann claimed, as a Christian, that we have a
> superior culture. Someone else chimed in that Christianity is our
> tradition and was superior to Paganism. Wrong on both counts.
I will forgo reasoned debate for just this once and tell you your
statement is one of the most ahistoric and ignorant pieces of crap I
have seen.
> Wizard Marks
*plonk*
Neal Krasnoff
Minneapolis
>> It happened thusly: Bachmann claimed, as a Christian, that we have a
>> superior culture. Someone else chimed in that Christianity is our
>> tradition and was superior to Paganism. Wrong on both counts.
>
> I will forgo reasoned debate for just this once and tell you your
> statement is one of the most ahistoric and ignorant pieces of crap I
> have seen.
I could ask which form of paganism is being talked about - is it
African tribalism, Celtic Druidism, Native American Shamanism, or just
any non Abrahamic religion?
I could start a litany of the historical cruelties of Christians
against those without religion, those with other religions, those in
other sects of their own religion and those within their own sect who
are deemed insufficient in some manner.
However, all that seems irrelevant because:
What does history have to do with it?
Are you debating the relative merits of historical cultures or the
relative merits of current cultures?
It seems like current cultures are the relevant question.
As a person who knows many Christians and a fair number of people who
are to some extent or another neo-pagans, I do not find current
Christian culture to be superior to current neo-pagan culture.
For one thing, most neo-pagans pretty much just want to be left alone
to live their lives as they will while there are a large number of
Christians who seem to insist on trying to push their God, their
prophet, and their concept of their religious rules on everyone.
As far as the potential merit of Abrahamic cultures go, I think
Judaic, Christian and Islamic cultures at their best can all be pretty
good. I think that any religious culture can become pretty vile when
it starts to try and control political doctrine.
That goes for Islamicists as well as Christianists. It would go for
"paganists" as well if such a movement cropped up and gained momentum.
Separation of church and state was one of the many good ideas the
founders of this nation had. Most of the evils that we see in the
modern radical Islamicist movement lie in the crossing of that line of
separation.
I believe that the state has the responsibility to protect the right
of its citizens to follow their choice of religions. I also believe
that the state should not be involved in the promotion of any religion
or sect above any other.
It is my opinion that any superiority of our culture lies in the
application of and adherence to that separation along with the other
rights and freedoms we claim. I think it is this granting of rights
and freedoms that has made America a beacon to the entire world since
its inception. I believe those rights and freedoms are the core of
what is called "The American Dream". I believe that if we can
overcome our cultural greed, gluttony, pride, and sometimes wrath (all
of which seems to have been on an accelerating increase since WWII) -
and follow that dream, we can become a paragon of civilization.
I believe that politicians like Bachman tend to undermine that
potential greatness and that if we were to let them gain full control
of our government, we could end up just as bad as the Taliban with the
only real difference being the name of the prophet we claim to follow.
Some may feel I'm being hyperbolic, but I believe that all religions
(especially exclusive ones) have the capability of violent
fundamentalism and that erasing the line which exists between the
teachings of religion and the power of the state is a significant step
towards realizing that capability.
- phædrus
On Dec 2, 2008, at 2:23 PM, phaedrus wrote:
>
> I could ask which form of paganism is being talked about - is it
> African tribalism, Celtic Druidism, Native American Shamanism, or just
> any non Abrahamic religion?
>
Oh my goodness. The Catholics refer to all others as Pagans. snip
Catholic Encyclopedia:
Paganism, in the broadest sense includes all religions other than the
true one revealed by God, and, in a narrower sense, all except
Christianity, Judaism, and Mohammedanism. The term is also used as
the equivalent of Polytheism.
It is derived from the Latin pagus, whence pagani (i.e. those who
live in the country), a name given to the country folk who remained
heathen after the cities had become Christian.
end snip
Native American spirituality is not shamanism. That term has been
imposed from the outside. As far as I can discern shamanism is
European and Asian. Not that it is a bad thing. I just isn't the
Indian thing.
Laura
Minneapolis/Southeast
Laura Waterman Wittstock
President and CEO
Wittstock & Associates
913 19th Ave SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414
612-387-4915
blog:
cornplanter's revenge
www.laurawatermanwittstock.com
Jason Goray wrote:
> Separation of church and state was one of the many good ideas the
> founders of this nation had.
Prove your assertion with cites from the Minnesota and United States
Constitutions.
Neal Krasnoff
Minneapolis
I am sorry for the history lesson but.... In a message dated 12/2/2008 2:33:20 P.M. Central Standard Time, <email obscured> writes: Some may feel I'm being hyperbolic, but I believe that all religions (especially exclusive ones) have the capability of violent fundamentalism and that erasing the line which exists between the teachings of religion and the power of the state is a significant step towards realizing that capability. - snip- Less time passed between the end of the Crusades and the landing on Plymouth Rock then between the colonization of this country and today. My point being that the notion of and endless war (more than a thousand years) fought in the name of Christianity was not that removed from our country's founders. Closer than that they need only look at the turmoil in England for one hundred and fifty years when Henry VIII removed the yoke of the Pope from his ability to govern setting about an internal Christian struggle that brought nothing but pain to the people of England for more than a Century. The Catholic/Protestant blood baths (and the English civil war) were closer to home to our founders, than the American Civil war is to us today. Liberation from the force that put the crown on the head of all kings of Europe was believed essential to the ability to have a democracy. JMONTOMEPPOF Chuck Repke **************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)
Neal its the FIRST Amendment... it was so important its the only thing that came before guns! Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, _Expression_ (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#exp) . _Ratified_ (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#BoR) 12/15/1791. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The FIRST most important concerns after the constitution was written was to add in the Bill of Rights, which were the things that we "self evident," to the founders, but they were fearful that evil people would try to take away. So, the constitution was amended to protect the people. And the very FIRST thing they wanted to do is to make certain that there WAS NOT A STATE RELIGION. Even more important than allowing a person the ability to exercise there religious choice was to make darn certain that those who want to impose their religion on others were prohibited from doing it. Sorry Neal, Christianity is not the state religion of the United States of America and our founders wanted to make darn certain it would never happen. JMONTOMEPPOF Chuck Repke In a message dated 12/2/2008 3:33:16 P.M. Central Standard Time, <email obscured> writes: Jason Goray wrote: > Separation of church and state was one of the many good ideas the > founders of this nation had. Prove your assertion with cites from the Minnesota and United States Constitutions. Neal Krasnoff Minneapolis Neal Krasnoff Loring Park, Minneapolis Info about Neal Krasnoff: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/nealkrasnoff This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5StrUpib3kHj9hzq2DIOpx
Neal
How the heck is anyone, Jason in this case, supposed to "Prove" an opinion?
Ron Leurquin
Nokomis East
Jason Goray wrote:
> Separation of church and state was one of the many good ideas the
> founders of this nation had.
Neal wrote:
Prove your assertion with cites from the Minnesota and United States
Constitutions.
Do we have a superior culture?
Two questions: "Superior at what?" and "measured how?"
Are we better at providing the most economic, personal and political freedom
than any other significant culture on this planet? Sure - assuming you're
measuring "liberty" and not "freedom from material want" or "freedom from
cognitive dissonance".
Is Christianity "superior" to other religions?
If by "superior" you mean "provides the greatest good to the greatest number of
people (ignoring outliers and, yes, a certain amount of history that almost all
mass religions have in common) of any significant belief system, it depends on
your measurement of "good", now, doesn't it? Do you want civil measures -
lives saved by faith outreach vs. lives lost to religious persecution and
inter/intrareligious strife in the past, say, 100 years? Christianity stacks
up well.
Measured by positive impact on numbers of people in the world, I don't think
American Christianity - which for all of its' detractors and allowing for not a
few outliers IS the most tolerant, accepting, and small-l "liberal"
agglomeration of believers in history - has all that much to be ashamed about
in comparison.
And for every one of the niggling, largely context-deprived, and
almost-invariably very old or very context-dependent counterexamples some of
you will come up with, I'll have a counter-counter example that reinforces the
thesis, should the diversion continue to be amusing enough to bother with.
Mitch Berg
G_d bless us every one
The Midway
The assertion was made that we have a superior culture because the USA is
Christian. Wrong. The USA is not a Christian nation-state. It's an absurd
statement to make.
Through time, various nation states have seemed superior to their neighbors.
The Egyptians, the Greeks, the British Empire (as opposed to the UK), France,
China, Phoenicians, and on and on. In those times, in those places, those
nation states were, if not superior to their neighbors, at least more powerful
than their neighbors.
They may have had superior armed forces, or resources, or numbers of humans who
were well fed, or probably all three. They most likely had a culture which
rewarded innovation. They certainly mixed that with rewards for adherance to
various religions. Chuck Repke cited England during the reign of Henry VIII and
subsequently (though perhaps not currently).
But our nation state, by design, is de jure Diest at best, though it is de
facto largely Christian.
I also contest Mr. Krasnoff's assertion that he has ever participated with
"reasoned debate."
Mitch
You mention 'American Christianity'. What the heck is that compared to
'Christianity'.
Also, you mentioned 'greatest number of people' in the Christianity vein of
thought. Unless I have been misinformed, the Muslims outnumber Christians by
quite a bit.
Other than that, quite interesting comments, and very little name calling.
Thanks.
Ron Leurquin
Nokomis East
Mitch shared:
If by "superior" you mean "provides the greatest good to the greatest number of
people (ignoring outliers and, yes, a certain amount of history that almost all
mass religions have in common) of any significant belief system, it depends on
your measurement of "good", now, doesn't it? Do you want civil measures -
lives saved by faith outreach vs. lives lost to religious persecution and
inter/intrareligious strife in the past, say, 100 years? Christianity stacks
up well.
Measured by positive impact on numbers of people in the world, I don't think
American Christianity - which for all of its' detractors and allowing for not a
few outliers IS the most tolerant, accepting, and small-l "liberal"
agglomeration of believers in history - has all that much to be ashamed about
in comparison.
> You mention 'American Christianity'. What the heck > is that compared to 'Christianity'. The part of Christianity practiced in America and/or by Americans, in a social, cultural and political sense more than a theological one (although there are theological implications in many cases). The various significant denominations and sects of the Christian faith as practiced in America largely share a few important characteristics that make them, if not unique in the world, at least notably different from other faiths, and in many cases different from other nations' versions of Christianity: * Toleration of other sects; protestants and catholics have never fought a holy war in the US. Orthodox Serbs don't roam the streets of Joliet hunting Croat Catholics. * Toleration, to a large degree, of other faiths - too examples to list. To pick a simple example: while American Catholicism had some anti-semitic pundits (Father Coughlin being an example), they never acted on their anti-semitism in the same way as, say, Polish Catholics, who during WWII were as feared by Jews as were the Nazis. Catholics and Jews co-exist in the US in a way that's baffled the French for decades. Christians throughout the US share their civil society and vocational lives with Moslems, Jews, Hindi, Buddhists, Animists and what-have-you in a way that leaves majority cultures around the world either envious or outraged, depending on the majority society. * Peaceful accomodation with, yet separation from, secular authority - American Christian denominations are not tied to the government (as, say, the Norwegian or German Lutheran churches are), and yet Christianity in America does not find itself in systematic opposition to secular authority (see: Islam in Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan...). I could go on, but I hope you get the picture. > Also, you mentioned 'greatest number of people' in > the Christianity vein of thought. Unless I have been > misinformed, the Muslims outnumber Christians by quite a > bit. You have been misinformed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions#Modern_classificat ions Christianity tops Islam by 1.9 billion to 1.1 billion - a little more than 3:2, counting *all* denominations and sects of both. Mitch Berg The Midway
Mitch Thank you Ron Leurquin Nokomis East Mitch wrote: The part of Christianity practiced in America and/or by Americans, in a social, cultural and political sense more than a theological one (although there are theological implications in many cases). The various significant denominations and sects of the Christian faith as practiced in America largely share a few important characteristics that make them, if not unique in the world, at least notably different from other faiths, and in many cases different from other nations' versions of Christianity: * Toleration of other sects; protestants and catholics have never fought a holy war in the US. Orthodox Serbs don't roam the streets of Joliet hunting Croat Catholics. * Toleration, to a large degree, of other faiths - too examples to list. To pick a simple example: while American Catholicism had some anti-semitic pundits (Father Coughlin being an example), they never acted on their anti-semitism in the same way as, say, Polish Catholics, who during WWII were as feared by Jews as were the Nazis. Catholics and Jews co-exist in the US in a way that's baffled the French for decades. Christians throughout the US share their civil society and vocational lives with Moslems, Jews, Hindi, Buddhists, Animists and what-have-you in a way that leaves majority cultures around the world either envious or outraged, depending on the majority society. * Peaceful accomodation with, yet separation from, secular authority - American Christian denominations are not tied to the government (as, say, the Norwegian or German Lutheran churches are), and yet Christianity in America does not find itself in systematic opposition to secular authority (see: Islam in Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan...). I could go on, but I hope you get the picture. > Also, you mentioned 'greatest number of people' in the Christianity > vein of thought. Unless I have been misinformed, the Muslims > outnumber Christians by quite a bit. You have been misinformed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions#Modern_classificat ions Christianity tops Islam by 1.9 billion to 1.1 billion - a little more than 3:2, counting *all* denominations and sects of both. Mitch Berg The Midway
Ronald Leurquin wrote:
> How the heck is anyone, Jason in this case, supposed to "Prove" an
> opinion?
Mr. Goray asserted:
> Separation of church and state was one of the many good ideas the
> founders of this nation had.
Mr. Repke responded for Mr. Goray and quoted Amendment I to the United
States Constitution:
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
> of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nowhere does it mention a "separation of church and state".
Miss Marks wrote:
> The assertion was made that we have a superior culture because the
> USA is Christian. Wrong. The USA is not a Christian nation-state.
> It's an absurd statement to make.
Where was it stated that "we have a superior culture because the USA
is Christian"? Civil society in the United States is based upon a
Judeo-Christian foundation. There is, however, no state religion.
> But our nation state, by design, is de jure Diest at best, though it
> is de facto largely Christian.
> [O]ur nation state...is de facto largely Christian.
Miss Marks *agrees* with Michelle Bachmann.
> I also contest Mr. Krasnoff's assertion that he has ever
> participated with "reasoned debate."
Thank you, Miss Marks. Duly noted.
Neal Krasnoff
Minneapolis
In a message dated 12/4/2008 6:24:09 PM Central Standard Time, <email obscured> writes: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, > or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Nowhere does it mention a "separation of church and state". Neal, Neal, Neal... that is what is meant by "separation of church and state" not establishing a religion! In England at the time of the revolution the King of England was the head of the Church of England and the Church of England was the official Church of the land. The Church of England was "established" as the official religion of the state. Get it? The King - the head of State was the head of the Church of England. They were the same person. You can't get any less separated than to have the government (the King) and the head of the Church (the King) be the same person. So, regardless of what Rush or Billo tells you, our founding fathers revolted against the power of the God to determine the government. The church would not be the state. And the State would not chose a God for the people that lived here. That is what is meant by separation of church and state. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; You are able to believe whatever you want to believe, but I have a constitutional protection to not have you cram it down my throat. JMONTOMEPPOF Chuck Repke **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010)
Wizard Marks wrote:
>I also contest Mr. Krasnoff's assertion that he has ever participated with
"reasoned debate."
ML:
I can agree with that! That's all that I have to say on this topic.
Matty Lang,
Midtown Phillips, Minneapolis
Mitch,
Native Americans, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Atheists and others might
have a slightly different view about the degree of religious tolerance since
1776 in the U.S.
Dennis Hill
St. Paul
Former Catholic, still Irish, American
{Shakes head}
> Native Americans, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Muslims,
> Atheists and others might have a slightly different view
> about the degree of religious tolerance since 1776 in the
> U.S.
Right. That's why I didn't go back to 1776.
America has changed a lot since 1776, on EVERY front; socially, economically,
politically, and with regard to religion.
Now, if you want to keep regurgitating 200 year old memes about divisive
relationships between social groups, knock yourself out - it is, indeed, the
dominant factor in being a liberal at this point in history - that's fine, but
you really are comparing apples with...well, very old apples.
But I was looking mostly at the last 50-100 years, as America's social status
of, say, 1850 (when Democrats were the party that hung their hat on defending
slavery) is unlikely to return.
Let's try to keep up here, Dennis.
Back on topic (if we may?): Does anyone know of a *significant* country
(shaddap about Denmark and Canada...) with *significant* diversity in religious
activity (...and Poland...) and social makeup (...and Sweden...) and a
small-"l" liberal government (...ditto China) where Christianity (or, indeed,
any majority faith - see Iran) plays a *significant* role in private and public
life, where there is *less* violent, repressive, overt strife (shaddap about
abstruse "climates of intolerance") between a majority religion and minority
faiths *and* the secular government?
Christian-bashers have to crank the bar pretty low and/or go back a lot farther
to find a *significant* complaint about Christianity in America.
Which would, I believe, be close enough to Neal's point.
Mitch Berg
The Midway
I love the defenders of the faith... (shakes head)
Has it been that long since the last presidential debates where we seriously
heard people questioning if someone could be a good American if they didn't
believe in God?
Do people remember only a few months ago where detractors of Senator Obama
were accusing him of being a Muslim and HIS DEFENDERS her screaming that he
wasn't a Muslim, like being a Muslim would make him unqualified for office, or
worse still because they know that if someone wasn't a Christian they wouldn't
vote for them?
Mitch in the year I was born, 1954, the Congress of the United States
debated adding the words, "Under God" to the pledge of allegiance. In the
debate,
at the time, the purpose of adding the language was to flush out Communists,
because since the Soviet Union was atheistic all communists must be atheists
and since communist were atheist all atheist must be communists and Anti
American. Therefore forcing atheists to pray during the pledge of allegiance
would either make their tongues fall out, or have God strike them dead. That
was
1954.
Just a few years ago, the GOP caught our congress woman taking a breath
during that part of the pledge and made a serious effort to accuse her of being
an atheist and therefore anti-American.
Yet consistently anywhere between 10-15% of the American public when asked
the question what religion they believe in respond - none.
Yup, tolerant. Tolerant enough that for 54 years we force atheist children
to pray to be able to recite the pledge of allegiance.
Just My Opinion Not Those Of My Employers, Past, Present or Future
Chuck Repke
In a message dated 12/5/2008 5:54:23 A.M. Central Standard Time,
<email obscured> writes:
{Shakes head}
> Native Americans, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Muslims,
> Atheists and others might have a slightly different view
> about the degree of religious tolerance since 1776 in the
> U.S.
Right. That's why I didn't go back to 1776.
America has changed a lot since 1776, on EVERY front; socially,
economically, politically, and with regard to religion.
Now, if you want to keep regurgitating 200 year old memes about divisive
relationships between social groups, knock yourself out - it is, indeed, the
dominant factor in being a liberal at this point in history - that's fine, but
you really are comparing apples with...well, very old apples.
But I was looking mostly at the last 50-100 years, as America's social
status of, say, 1850 (when Democrats were the party that hung their hat on
defending slavery) is unlikely to return.
Let's try to keep up here, Dennis.
Back on topic (if we may?): Does anyone know of a *significant* country
(shaddap about Denmark and Canada...) with *significant* diversity in
religious
activity (...and Poland...) and social makeup (...and Sweden...) and a
small-"l" liberal government (...ditto China) where Christianity (or, indeed,
any
majority faith - see Iran) plays a *significant* role in private and public
life, where there is *less* violent, repressive, overt strife (shaddap about
abstruse "climates of intolerance") between a majority religion and minority
faiths *and* the secular government?
Christian-bashers have to crank the bar pretty low and/or go back a lot
farther to find a *significant* complaint about Christianity in America.
Which would, I believe, be close enough to Neal's point.
Mitch Berg
The Midway
Left off Dennis' list of those subjected to oppression on religious grounds are
Anglicans who were seriously persecuted following the Revolutionary War. Their
religion was banned in a number of states and their churches confiscated.
And, of course, being on the list of oppressed groups does not exclude a group
from being on a list of oppressors either.
Chuck Repke wrote:
> Neal, Neal, Neal... that is what is meant by "separation of church
> and state" not establishing a religion!
Wrong, Mr. Repke. The First Amendment enumerates the free exercise
clause and the prohibition against establishing a state religion.
"[S]eparation of church and state" is lifted from Mr. Jefferson's
letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.
> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
> between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his
> faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach
> actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign
> reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that
> their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a
> wall of separation between church and state.
Civil society in the United States is based upon a Judeo-Christian
theological hybrid.
Neal Krasnoff
Minneapolis
>> Separation of church and state was one of the many good ideas the
>> founders of this nation had.
>
> Mr. Repke responded for Mr. Goray and quoted Amendment I to the United
> States Constitution:
>
>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
>> of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
>> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>
> Nowhere does it mention a "separation of church and state".
"Separation of Church and State" is a convenient phrase to describe
the constitutional rules that block the state from requiring or
prohibiting a religion as well as the constitutional rules that limit
any given church's ability to control government.
Not only does the First Ammendment direct that the government can not
set up or prohibit the establishment or exercise of any religion, it
states that no person holding any office or public trust can be
required to swear an oath to any religion.
This appears under article 6:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or public Trust under the United States."
You're right, the words "Separation of Church and State" do not appear.
Its just a handy way to describe what does appear in the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights. Based on article 6 and the first Amendment,
I stand by my statement that the founders of this nation placed the
principle of separation of church and state in our constitution as
well as my opinion that it was a good idea.
Among other reasons I like it - it permitted the growth and
development of the "American Christian Culture" that Mitch was talking
about. A culture where we don't have to kill people of different
sects.
As far as whether our culture is "superior," first I'd have to ask who
we are comparing ourselves to. From a generalized standpoint, I feel
that we have a great framework which gives us a great deal of
potential, but I think that we've a ways to go to realize that
potential and I feel that our pride tends to limit our capability for
critical self-analysis that would help us improve.
In terms of politically trying to achieve that potential, I tend to
prefer leaders that show a capability or tendency to recognize our
strengths and our weaknesses than those who tend to
cheerleading-go-team-go-we're-the-best-everyone-else-sucks-in-your-face-whatever.
I tend to feel we've seen far too many "leaders" in the latter group
for the past ... well, ok, for pretty much as long as I can recall,
but it seems like its gotten worse in the past 8 years or so.
- phædrus
Will someone explain to me why anyone chooses to waste their time
attempting to convince Neal Krasnoff (among others) of anything? This
is merely one of the string of arguments leading nowhere on this list
among precisely the same short list of correspondents who have been
knocking heads here for 20 years - to what end? The same essential
points are made in all threads by the same people. Happy holidays one
and all.
Andy Driscoll
St. Paul