HIGHLA-L Digest - 4 Feb 2006 to 5 Feb 2006 - Special issue (#2006-31)
HIGHLA-L automatic digest system (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Sun, 5 Feb 2006 19:41:54 -0500
There are 19 messages totalling 817 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. religious tolerance, my ass
2. Tolerance. (16)
3. Holy Ground Threatened By Scottish Godlessness!
4. Tolerance. DEBBIE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 21:17:02 -0600
From: Kamil <kamilaa@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: religious tolerance, my ass
On 2/4/06, MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net> wrote:
> Oops, they did it again.
>
> NBC has bowed to religious pressure yet again, this time futzing on a story
> line for guest star Britney Spears. Is nothing sacred?
> http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,271|99868|1|,00.html
>
> Nina (who finds the pop tart offensive because she can't spell her own name)
> mac.westie@verizon.net
>
Well, yes, she is annoying beyond the telling of it (and since when is
she an actress? 0_o), and we as a people would undoubtedly be better
off if we'd never heard her name (I personally am annoyed as hell that
I even know who Kevin Federline is, and, rightfully, blame the Brit
for that -- bitterly blame her, in fact), but since when do they care
what's on "Will and Grace" anyway?
I'm pretty sure Christian Conservatives weren't watching the show to
begin with? So they care why?
I must now abase myself before the list and admit to spending far too
much time playing an online game called "Neopets". Yes, I own my shame
- but it's fun, there are a zillion ways to sucessfully play the game
and it gives me something to do while I sit and home and grind my
teeth over my inability to work these days. Damned nerve damage.
Anyway.
I play Neopets and only Neopets, and therefore could care less what
SuBeta does with their competing site. If they want to have Jesus Pets
- whatever. I don't have to see them unless I go there and make the
effort.
Likewise, CC's don't have to watch W&G unless they change the channel
and, wait for it -- make the effort.
To bring the metaphor a tad closer to home, most reality television
grinds my very last nerve to the bone -- so I don't look. I watch the
one or two I like (Dancing With the Stars and the Amazing Race) and
ignore, pointedly ignore, the others.
I like to call it tolerance -- with a side of snobbery. But as I'm not
screaming and foaming for the immediate removal of "Survivor" and
those hideous "nanny" shows, tolerance it remains.
I don't know why those who insist on naming themselves "Conservative
Christians" can't do the same.
--
Kamil
Spanky: "You pathetic little fairy."
Angel: "Hey! I'm not little!"
"Conviction" Angel the Series
*sigh* I miss my dead gay show.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 23:17:34 EST
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
In a message dated 2/4/2006 8:28:52 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
mac.westie@verizon.net writes:
>>really? Just last week you were gloating over
a faith-based victory in TV programming. You weren't exactly oozing
forgiveness or tolerance. You & yours really need to practice what you
preach.
Yes really. I would never have approved of protests against the show
involved. I am all for "freedom." The fact that this particular perversion of
Christianity didn' t *make it * on tv., however, is a wonderful thing to me. If
it had been a huge success, most of the serious Christians I know would have
avoided it ,but you wouldn't have seen any beheadings or retaliation. We'll
leave that to the *others.*
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 22:46:19 -0600
From: Kamil <kamilaa@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
On 2/4/06, Dotiran@aol.com <Dotiran@aol.com> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/4/2006 8:28:52 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> mac.westie@verizon.net writes:
>
> >>really? Just last week you were gloating over
> a faith-based victory in TV programming. You weren't exactly oozing
> forgiveness or tolerance. You & yours really need to practice what you
> preach.
>
>
>
> Yes really. I would never have approved of protests against the show
> involved. I am all for "freedom." The fact that this particular perversion of
> Christianity didn' t *make it * on tv., however, is a wonderful thing to me. If
> it had been a huge success, most of the serious Christians I know would have
> avoided it ,but you wouldn't have seen any beheadings or retaliation. We'll
> leave that to the *others.*
>
But, see? The thing is, it didn't "make it" *because* of the so-called
"serious Christians".
Exactly because of them. No other reason. The show *couldn't* garner
good numbers; many stations never aired it in the first place because
of pressure from people who had NEVER SEEN IT, so there was nothing
for people in those markets to tune into.
Therefore, in due course, the Neilson boxes in those markets phoned
home and reported that their owner was making another choice that hour
-- when in reality, we don't know if the person who owned that box
would've made another choice or not -- they never had a chance to make
a choice.
Because of the "serious Christians". Who took it upon themselves to
ensure that no one saw it. Because apparently the God they worship
isn't big enough or strong enough to stand up to serious examination
-- or even a little light-hearted examination.
I dunno, the God I believe in is tough enough to take it. And generous
enough too.
--
Kamil
Spanky: "You pathetic little fairy."
Angel: "Hey! I'm not little!"
"Conviction" Angel the Series
*sigh* I miss my dead gay show.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 23:46:02 -0600
From: Ginny Gibbs <red57metoo@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Holy Ground Threatened By Scottish Godlessness!
Jette Goldie wrote:
<snippety me, snippety you>
> They pointed to a variety of successful church conversions,
> including bars and nightclubs, activity centres and the popular Oràn
> Mór arts venue in Glasgow.
>
> The article is at http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=179762006
>
>
> Darn those Godless Scots! There will soon be no place for an Immortal to
> lay his or her head without someone taking it off.
>
>
>
> I've seen some excellent house conversions from old churches - bit
> on the draughty side sometimes, but lots of space.
>
I saw one too - someplace near Loch Lomond that had been converted into
a pretty charming little artsy-craftsy gift shop. I felt sad about the
church, but at least it hadn't been torn down.
> Jette Goldie
> jette@blueyonder.co.uk
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 07:51:06 +0200
From: TMar <tmar@polka.co.za>
Subject: Re: Tolerance. DEBBIE
>Spanky: "You pathetic little fairy."
>Angel: "Hey! I'm not little!"
>"Conviction" Angel the Series
>*sigh* I miss my dead gay show.
You're not the only one, honey.
- Marina.
\\ "So what do you wanna do?" ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// "I'm not sure... as long as it doesn't || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ involve putting on a suit and doing a lot ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// of flying." - Chloe and Clark; Smallville || \\
\\==============tmar@polka.co.za=============|| //
//============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie===========\\
"...fighting for what you believe in is important and that,
sometimes, the only thing that matters is that you *did*
fight." - Keith Topping (about 'Angel')
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 12:13:02 -0000
From: ElaineN <Elainen@inguz.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
I think a part of the whole problem here is that a few fundamentalists
have jumped on this and gone for it in a big way. All religions have
their fundamentalist sides.
I think the problem now is that as John says the Islamic fundamentalists
have made it impossible for the European press to back down. It's
always a bad idea to back someone into a corner with no way out.
On the issue of what is funny and what is not. Every single joke told
is offensive to someone. It's a question of if that person decides to
laugh at it and see it for what it is or if they go over the top and
take offence.
I recall when a certain sheep was cloned by inbox was full of queries
about was it a co-incidence that a lab in Scotland choose to clone a
sheep first. Now that could be considered highly offence.
Personally, I found it hysterical.
And what about all the Scottish/English/Irish jokes where would we be
without those.
I asked a few people if they knew what offence the Muslims were outraged
about. Everyone said it was the portrayal of Mohammed as a terrorist.
Well yes, that's part of it - but it is the very portrayal of Mohammed,
something not allowed in their religion.
Part of the problem is the very people protesting about no respect are
in themselves showing no respect. But then the people organising the
protest have no interest in respect, and probably even less in Islam or
Mohammed, they are only interested in Power.
I said yesterday to someone that every single protester in London who
was carrying a banner calling for bombs to be planted and people to be
killed should be arrested and charged.
I will fight for anyone's right to say or believe anything they please,
as long as they do not try to impose that on anyone else.
Unfortunately we seem to be living in a world where 'if you're no fur
me, you're agin me' and that is the worst possible kind of place to
live.
Any religion that tries to restrict what people read needs to be
questioned very severely. Knowledge and learning are the greatest gifts
we have. Knowledge and information never hurt anyone, it is only what
people do that hurts others.
>> Rottie is right that no-one seems to worry about upsettingJesus
("Maybe that's because Jesus doesn't tear people's arms out of their
sockets when he loses..." ) <<
Christianity has a fairly blood soaked history After Rome became
Christian the games became bloodier, the inquisition, the burning of
witches, the crusades......Of course that wasn't Jesus Christ that was
merely men who wanted power using it for their own ends, a bit like many
Islamic leaders today and a few Western ones.
Thankfully Christianity has learned more tolerance, but it should never
forget it's past or it may just repeat it.
I can't remember which book the quote came from or who, but it made a
great impact on me. "It took 300 years to teach Muslims to hate and
kill the way we Christians do."
What are we going to do - I really don't know. I suppose just keep
trying to be tolerant and try to understand others. The one thing we
must not do is assume that everyone is the same because of their faith,
their nationality or their colour.
Elaine.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 16:37:24 -0000
From: John Mosby - Laptop <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
Wait. There are aethist fish?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wendy" <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] Tolerance.
> John's Laptop says :
> <snip many good things>
>> If something is printed in a paper in MumbleBeck, Wisconsin does
>> a person in Burkaville, Downtown Iran have the right to say
>> 'Stop that! I don't like it'.
>
> Speaking as someone from MumbleBeck, Wisconsin ("Home of the Annual
> Muskie Wrestling Championship"), I wholeheartedly support the person in
> Burkaville's right to *say* 'Stop that! I don't like it'. Of course, I
> am free to ignore his opinion and go right on publishing my newspaper.
> He has a right to publish his own newspaper with cartoons showing the
> citizens of MumbleBeck as atheistic fish wrestlers. I can then say 'Stop
> that! I don't like it" and so on and so on. What Mr. Burkaville does not
> have a right to do is start firebombing my offices. And I can't firebomb
> his.
>
>>Equally can a guy in
>> Senatetown, USA decide to bomb The FuriousEthnic Times in
>> Jihandtown if he doesn't like their editor?
>
> Maybe the guy in Senatetown will just co-opt the FuriusEthnic Times by
> paying its reporters to publish pro-Senatetown articles?
>
>> We DO have to be sensitive to the fact that there is a growth
>> in people who take religion *very* seriously... seriously to
>> the point that that any criticism or levity aimed in its
>> diction is seen as blasphemous and that is seen as carte
>> blanche for any retalitaion or action. While that is not
>> acceptable in a democracy, the right to have a level of
>> respect for religious beliefs should be. It's a balance that
>> only works when both sides think about everyone else's rights
>> rather than just their own rights. It won't stop some people
>> being offended by things that others find acceptable, but it
>> does offer perspective.
>
> And there's the rub. What happens if both sides *don't* think about
> everyone else's rights? What if one side believes in rights and
> free-speech and freedom of (and from) religion and the other side won't
> be happy until all the "non-believers" are dead or converted? (And I'm
> not just talking radical Muslims here, radical Christians ...and certain
> politicians ...have much to answer for too) Does the free-speech side
> start pulling back in fear? Does it continue to speak out and risk
> physical (versus verbal) attack? We like to talk a good game of " give
> me liberty or give me death" but how many of us would actually continue
> to say unpopular things when the risk of a firebomb through the window
> of home and office became real? When the sound of jackboots in the night
> was common? When that crackling on the telephone line was most likely a
> wire tap and not a squirrel on the wire?
>
>>("Maybe that's because Jesus doesn't tear
>> people's arms out of their sockets when he loses..." )
>
> There was a time when people feared upsetting "Jesus". I think it was
> called the Inquisition and lots of arms got pulled out of lots of
> sockets. The Crusades? Witch hunts anyone? The KKK? The ability to kill
> and maim and oppress in the name of ones' religion isn't limited to
> non-Christian faith. There are parts of the Good Ole USofA today where
> publishing a cartoon showing Jesus in an unfavorable light could result
> in a firebomb through the window.
>
>> Christians, in my experience, can take a joke.
>
> Guess you haven't spent much time in Alabama! (My apologies to all the
> fun-loving easy-going joke-loving Christians of Alabama)
>
> My experience is that few people can see the humor in their religion.
> Which is too bad since most religions are very funny.
>
> Wendy(Incoming!)
>
> Immortals Inc.
> immortals_incorporated@cox.net
> "Weasels for Eternity"
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 12:06:34 -0500
From: Wendy <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
Rottie says:
> Yes really. I would never have approved of protests against
> the show involved. I am all for "freedom." The fact that
> this particular perversion of Christianity didn' t *make it
> * on tv., however, is a wonderful thing to me.
"perversion"?
"perversion of Christianity" ?
Wow.
That's a pretty big charge to level against a TV show and it's hyperbole
at its worst (best?). There are real life Episcopal priests with drug
problems who continue to go about their daily routine. There are real
life Episcopal priests with gay sons or daughters or sisters or brothers
who don't toss said gay relatives into the street as soon as the
"horrible truth" is known. There are real life Episcopal priest with
wives who drink and family members who pilfer from the poor box. There
are real life Episcopal priests who talk to Jesus the way you or I might
talk to a beloved, but deceased, mother or father. None of those things
is a perversion of Christianity- or at least no form of Christianity
that I recognize. Yes, putting all of those elements in one TV show is
overkill but it's *TV* !!! And even taken in sum it doesn't represent a
*perversion of Christianity*. (The inability to turn the other cheek and
love one's neighbor even when they are watching a TV show you disapprove
of is a perversion of Christianity)
> If it had
> been a huge success, most of the serious Christians I know
> would have avoided it ,
But "serious Christians: *didn't* just avoid it ::::bangs head on
keyboard::::: They actively and successfully campaigned to have it
pulled off the schedule. Instead of allowing those who liked BoD to
watch it while "serious Christians" devoted that hour of the day to
reading their Bibles or watching the "700 Club" or playing with their
kids, those "serious Christians" made sure no one could watch BoD. I
think the "King of Queens" and "Yes Dear" and "Still Standing" are crap.
I think they show an unflattering and unrealistic picture of American
family life. But I don't campaign to have them removed. I just allow
them to go on without me.
>but you wouldn't have seen any
> beheadings or retaliation. We'll leave that to the *others.*
No, no beheadings or *physical * retaliation. But there was a serious
threat of economic retaliation against the network and its sponsors.
Economic blackmail is still blackmail.
Wendy (Argh)(BTW......DEBBIE!)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 09:14:36 -0800
From: Stephen Bryce <sibryce@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
> Rottie says:
> > Yes really. I would never have approved of protests against
> > the show involved. I am all for "freedom." The fact that
> > this particular perversion of Christianity didn' t *make it
> > * on tv., however, is a wonderful thing to me.
>
> "perversion"?
>
> "perversion of Christianity" ?
>
> Wow.
>
> That's a pretty big charge to level against a TV show and it's
> hyperbole
> at its worst (best?). There are real life Episcopal priests with
> drug
> problems who continue to go about their daily routine. There are
> real
> life Episcopal priests with gay sons or daughters or sisters or
> brothers
> who don't toss said gay relatives into the street as soon as the
> "horrible truth" is known. There are real life Episcopal priest with
> wives who drink and family members who pilfer from the poor box.
> There
> are real life Episcopal priests who talk to Jesus the way you or I
> might
> talk to a beloved, but deceased, mother or father. None of those
> things
> is a perversion of Christianity- or at least no form of Christianity
> that I recognize. Yes, putting all of those elements in one TV show
> is
> overkill but it's *TV* !!! And even taken in sum it doesn't represent
> a
> *perversion of Christianity*. (The inability to turn the other cheek
> and
> love one's neighbor even when they are watching a TV show you
> disapprove
> of is a perversion of Christianity)
>
> > If it had
> > been a huge success, most of the serious Christians I know
> > would have avoided it ,
>
> But "serious Christians: *didn't* just avoid it ::::bangs head on
> keyboard::::: They actively and successfully campaigned to have it
> pulled off the schedule. Instead of allowing those who liked BoD to
> watch it while "serious Christians" devoted that hour of the day to
> reading their Bibles or watching the "700 Club" or playing with their
> kids, those "serious Christians" made sure no one could watch BoD. I
> think the "King of Queens" and "Yes Dear" and "Still Standing" are
> crap.
> I think they show an unflattering and unrealistic picture of American
> family life. But I don't campaign to have them removed. I just allow
> them to go on without me.
>
> >but you wouldn't have seen any
> > beheadings or retaliation. We'll leave that to the *others.*
>
> No, no beheadings or *physical * retaliation. But there was a serious
> threat of economic retaliation against the network and its sponsors.
> Economic blackmail is still blackmail.
>
> Wendy (Argh)
I agree, this is utterly ridiculous. I'm all for respecting people's
religious beliefs, but not when they try to impose intolerant views on
others. Forget about blackmail, all of this belittling of BoD is
almost an extortionist approach, and I'd even call it gang-like
behaviour for people who presumably claim to be compassionate followers
of Christ.
The hypocrisy here is almost overpowering.
"I'm going slightly mad... I'm going slightly mad! It finally happened... It finally happened, oh yes. It finally happened, I'm slightly mad! Oh dear..."
(Freddie Mercury/Queen, "I'm Going Slightly Mad")
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 12:56:21 EST
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
In a message dated 2/4/2006 12:29:12 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Dotiran@AOL.COM writes:
We will not accept less than severing the heads of those responsible," one
preacher at Al Omari mosque in Gaza told worshipers during Friday Prayer,
according to Reuters. Other demonstrators called for amputating the hands of
the
cartoonists who drew the pictures"
Extremist clerics, what a whacky bunch. Just the other day, I heard Pat
Robertson predict an entire American community was going to die because it hadn't
voted the way he thought God would approve, on a school issue.
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 13:03:11 EST
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
In a message dated 2/5/2006 11:40:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
a.j.mosby@BTINTERNET.COM writes:
Wait. There are aethist fish?
Leslie Fish.
(Gefilte Fish is Jewish)
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 13:04:08 EST
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
Imagine no religion.
---John Lennon
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 18:05:42 -0000
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
From: <Bizarro7@AOL.COM>
> Imagine no religion.
>
It's easy if you try.
> ---John Lennon
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 20:33:59 +0200
From: TMar <tmar@polka.co.za>
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
Bizarro7@aol.com wrote:
>Imagine no religion. ---John Lennon
No, no, it's
"...and no religion too."
See, this is where problems come in... unless you listen to
the original, you get everything garbled.
- Marina. (Who has listened to Scott Bakula's version of "Imagine"
about 100 times.) (But also has the original and is listening to
it as she types.) (You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the
only one.)
\\ "So what do you wanna do?" ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// "I'm not sure... as long as it doesn't || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ involve putting on a suit and doing a lot ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// of flying." - Chloe and Clark; Smallville || \\
\\==============tmar@polka.co.za=============|| //
//============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie===========\\
"...fighting for what you believe in is important and that,
sometimes, the only thing that matters is that you *did*
fight." - Keith Topping (about 'Angel')
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 15:20:20 -0500
From: Wendy <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
John is surprised:
> Wait. There are aethist fish?
Yes, just as there are angelfish and monkfish, there are atheist fish.
They tend to be solitary and avoid drawing attention to themselves. They
are usually found in the god-forsaken parts of the ocean.
Wendy(Atheist fish don't make good eating.)(They're tough.)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 17:08:37 -0600
From: Ginny Gibbs <red57metoo@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
Bizarro7@aol.com wrote:
>Imagine no religion.
>
> ---John Lennon
>
>
>
>
If there were no religion, there would be a lot less bloodshed, true.
But there would be a lot less art and music, too.
Imagine all the people, living life in peace.
I heard that on the radio the other night.. the local station probably
making a statement on the State of the Union speech, which was due to
begin within a few minutes.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 23:27:25 -0000
From: John Mosby - Laptop <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
I don't have a problem with God(s). It's people.
No matter how divine or direct the hand involved in a religion, any process
that involves human beings is ultimately open to flaws. Ask any two people
(even in the same faith) about their opinions/beliefs and their
interpreation will differ, sometimes slightly, sometimes hugely.
I'm sure God (of choice) is perfect, it's the people who run their PR
companies that often piss me off.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ginny Gibbs" <red57metoo@yahoo.com>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] Tolerance.
> Bizarro7@aol.com wrote:
>
>>Imagine no religion.
>>
>> ---John Lennon
>>
>>
>>
> If there were no religion, there would be a lot less bloodshed, true. But
> there would be a lot less art and music, too.
>
> Imagine all the people, living life in peace.
>
> I heard that on the radio the other night.. the local station probably
> making a statement on the State of the Union speech, which was due to
> begin within a few minutes.
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 17:31:17 -0600
From: Kamil <kamilaa@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
On 2/5/06, John Mosby - Laptop <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com> wrote:
> I'm sure God (of choice) is perfect, it's the people who run their PR
> companies that often piss me off.
And with that you've made my sig file. <g>
--
Kamil
"I wore black because I liked it. I still do, and wearing it still
means something to me. It's still my symbol of rebellion--against a
stagnant status quo, against our hypocritical houses of God, against
people whose minds are closed to others' ideas."
Johnny Cash
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 14:41:47 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
Rottie--
> The fact that this particular perversion of
> Christianity didn' t *make it * on tv., however, is a wonderful thing to
> me.
It's sad to see someone denigrate her own faith like that.
> most of the serious Christians I know would have
"Serious Christians"? Is that the correct term these days? Ugh.
> avoided it ,but you wouldn't have seen any beheadings or retaliation.
> We'll
> leave that to the *others.*
Don't kid yourself--there's less & less difference between your "serious
Christians" & those scary "others."
Nina (if there's a group going by "Whimsical Christians" I'd check them out)
(or "Non-Extortionist/Non-Whining Christians") (maybe just "Mai Tai
Christians") (Animal Planet's Puppy Bowl today is a hilarious antidote to
the other one, w/ Kitten Play halftime) (DEBBIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 4 Feb 2006 to 5 Feb 2006 - Special issue (#2006-31)
****************************************************************************