Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
HIX HUNGARY 59
Copyright (C) HIX
1994-08-28
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 "statistics" on Hungarian religion (mind)  17 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: beer/god (mind)  21 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: interpretation of the 1994 election results (mind)  108 sor     (cikkei)
4 Re: Church and state (mind)  8 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: beer/god (mind)  13 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: beer/god (mind)  14 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: Church and state (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: interpretation of the 1994 election results (mind)  89 sor     (cikkei)
9 Re: beer/god (mind)  22 sor     (cikkei)
10 Re: beer/god (mind)  36 sor     (cikkei)
11 Re: interpretation of the 1994 election results (mind)  63 sor     (cikkei)
12 Opiate/Heart (mind)  18 sor     (cikkei)
13 Re: Army and Church (mind)  9 sor     (cikkei)
14 Trouble with VCR tape from Hungary (mind)  6 sor     (cikkei)
15 the Church under Kadar (mind)  26 sor     (cikkei)
16 British Monarchy (mind)  13 sor     (cikkei)
17 A monarchy? (mind)  54 sor     (cikkei)

+ - "statistics" on Hungarian religion (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I've been emailed the following criticism:

                               ***

 Dear Greg, I just arrived back, so under the 6-hr jet-lag I decided to
jump in w/ a smallish correction:
>Hungary's religion statistics:
>  Roman Catholic 67.5%, Calvinist 20%, Lutheran 5%, atheist and other 7.5%
 It is AFAIK actually not a statistics in any sense we know of, but a
number arrived at based on the made-up numbers from the church
officials (the numbers for both the church-goers and payers of
financial contributions required are much lower, I think on the order
of 20%); but don't tell anyone lest some of the money from the West
stops flowing in ;-(...
                                ***

--Greg
+ - Re: beer/god (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Charles writes:

> >Dictionaries are our friends:
> >
> --So are snakes!

And both can offer a route to knowledge, if you believe what you read...

> >rationalism: reliance on reason as the basis for establishment of religious
> >truth
> >
> That may be a dictionary definition, but it isn't good theology.

I yield to your training and experience.  However, I was just trying to
show that the word does have meaning and history in a religious context.

I'd guess "rationalist" is partly a label for people who rely proportionally
less on tradition and authority.


--Greg
+ - Re: interpretation of the 1994 election results (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Andra1s Kornai writes:

> ...giving said priest one rank or another, what has this
> got to do with your fundamental rights?

I think that would fall under the heading "reasonable accomodation".

> Just to keep the
> record straight, I never said that I was an atheist or that I perceive the
> official churches as stupid, ossified, or whatever.

You are right; I shouldn't've imputed otherwise, sorry for the try at
 _argumentum
ad verecundian_.


> >Oh dear.  You couldn't be a leeeeetle bit charitable and assume part of the
> >reason they are there is to try to improve this institution devoted to
 killing?

> What do you mean improving the institution?

I mean improving the institution by improving the people in it.

> We have it on the authority of
> Paul Gelencse1r that "for a Christian, killing is wrong, PERIOD!".

Well, there's an earlier Paul who said "let every soul be subject to the
higher powers."

> Supposing
> this is true (though Charles Atherton argues it's not quite that simple),
> priests can only be blunting the efficiency of a killing machine that is
> maintained at taxpayer expense.

Debatable.  Promise your 12 year old recruits paradise for death in battle,
and send them out to walk in mass through minefields.  Or so I've heard was don
e
during the Iran/Iraq war.

Anyways, I think we can safely expose our modern soldiery to voluntary religiou
s
ministry.

> Maybe we don't need these killing machines.
> If that is so, in dismantling the armies of the world it is a good first
> step to replace warships, tanks, and fighter/bomber aircraft with army
> chaplains -- they are cheaper, easier to maintain, and are unlikely to be
> deployed for the purpose of killing other people.
Now you begin to see!  Not to mention, if the chaplains are RC, child care
and spouse's benefits are minimal.


> >And that to better serve their co-religionists, it helps to be "official"?
> Sure does. So they are going to be a little less better able to serve than
> anticipated. They remain quite able to serve (since status quo is unchanged,
> only certain promises about better integration will go unfulfilled) but
> their hopes for further nyomula1s are squashed, at least until the next
> elections. Ah, how my heart bleeds for these humble servants of the Lord
> not getting the proper rank befitting them.
Well, the policy changes that started this thread may indeed be trivial.  I was
trying to address (what I assumed to be) your opinion that religion should
have no "official" presence in the military.


> >Naturally, first one must admit that the ossified, conservative, and
> >stupid can still act in good faith--oops, is that a bad word to bring up?
 :-)
> Once again, I didn't say they were ossified etc,

Apology repeated.

> I said this perception is
> world-wide. To some extent I actually share this perception,

Apology retracted!

> but we haven't
> in any way discussed to what extent.

Reinstated.  :-)


[various snippets:]

> ...I would still want to separate them from state-run things
> maximally.

> I just want separation of
> Church and State, any church, any state.

Your hair must be exceedingly long and fine.  :-)

> I haven't condemned the church (whichever church).

I think you've been praising rather faintly, though.

> I just don't want them
> around my school or my army (or any place where people go involuntarily) in
> a highly official capacity. I tolerate their presence, but I don't want them
> to be intertwined with the power structure maintened by, of, and for the
> people.

I can buy into this, especially as I believe neither condition is met;
I understand that your standards are different.  :-)


--Greg
+ - Re: Church and state (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

> --"Religion is the opiate of the people."

Tucked away in some dusty corner of my mind is the notion that Marx
also said that "religion is the heart of a heartless world".

I may be imagining things, though.

--Greg
+ - Re: beer/god (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Sat, 27 Aug 1994 12:00:23 -0700 > said:
>
>And both can offer a route to knowledge, if you believe what you read...
>
--And, pray tell, what have you learned from snakes?

>I'd guess "rationalist" is partly a label for people who rely proportionally
>less on tradition and authority.
>
--Not a bad distinction.  But most theologians are rationalists after one
accepts the basic premise.  See St. Thomas.

Charles
+ - Re: beer/god (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

> >And both can offer a route to knowledge, if you believe what you read...
> >
> --And, pray tell, what have you learned from snakes?

I rather had in mind a purported ancestress of mine, who was advised
by a snake (well, serpent, but close enough)
"For God doth know that in the day ye eat [the fruit], then your eyes
shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."


Just my usual feeble humor.  :-)


--Greg
+ - Re: Church and state (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Sat, 27 Aug 1994 14:04:06 -0700 > said:
>> --"Religion is the opiate of the people."
>
>Tucked away in some dusty corner of my mind is the notion that Marx
>also said that "religion is the heart of a heartless world".
>
>I may be imagining things, though.
>
--I think that I can locate my quotation from Marx.  I don't think
you can.  Let's see.

Charles
+ - Re: interpretation of the 1994 election results (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Sat, 27 Aug 1994 13:54:11 -0700 > said:
>Andra1s Kornai writes:
>
>> ...giving said priest one rank or another, what has this
>> got to do with your fundamental rights?
>
>I think that would fall under the heading "reasonable accomodation".
>
--This is getting complicated, since I decided to take a hand in this.
I'll label my intrusive comments just to keep things straight.  But Greg,
I have to side with Mr. Kornai on this.  I am a professing Christian, but
I don't see the justification for ANY state support of ANY religion.  I
know that most European countries traditionally had established churches,
but my perception is that this is one of the worst things that could be
done.  The American armed forces have chaplains, primarily because of
tradition and it might be reasonable accommodation in the sense that the
American armed forces also provide barbers.  But if the church is
established, then the chaplain becomes a servant of the government.  Bad
principle.  If the church is disestablished and chaplains are provided
on the same basis as other "reasonable accommodations" then I wouldn't
object.  But the founding fathers in America were wise beyond their
time to disestablish religion--Charles

>Well, there's an earlier Paul who said "let every soul be subject to the
>higher powers."
>
>> Supposing
>> this is true (though Charles Atherton argues it's not quite that simple),
>> priests can only be blunting the efficiency of a killing machine that is
>> maintained at taxpayer expense.
>
>Debatable.  Promise your 12 year old recruits paradise for death in battle,
>and send them out to walk in mass through minefields.  Or so I've heard was
>done
>during the Iran/Iraq war.
>
--Bad argument, Greg.  Islam doesn't believe in the separation of church
and state.  You guys may force me to try to write Hebrew on a computer
in order to make my point.  Please take my word for it.  Christianity
says that murder is wrong.  Not all killing is murder.  The commandment
does not use the Hebrew word for killing.  It uses the one for murder.
--Charles

>Well, the policy changes that started this thread may indeed be trivial.  I wa
s
>trying to address (what I assumed to be) your opinion that religion should
>have no "official" presence in the military.
>
--A point which which I agree, unless religion is disestablished and
chaplains are provided on the same basis as barbers--Charles

>> I said this perception is
>> world-wide. To some extent I actually share this perception,
>
>Apology retracted!
>
--Greg, I think that you're being bloody-minded!  Most of Europe
has abandoned religion.  As you might guess, I think that the culprit is
the official or semi-official linkage of church to state.  If churches
have more moral authority in America, it is because they are separate
from the state and not obligated to it for funds or official sanction--
Charles

>> ...I would still want to separate them from state-run things
>> maximally.
>
>> I just want separation of
>> Church and State, any church, any state.
>
>Your hair must be exceedingly long and fine.  :-)
>
--But mine is very short, and I agree with Mr. Kornai--Charles

>> I haven't condemned the church (whichever church).
>
>I think you've been praising rather faintly, though.
>
--Faint praise is all that the institutional church deserves.  Now,
should you want to talk about the communtion of saints, that long line
of ghosts of genuinely religious people, some of whom may have been
known as atheists, I will disagree--Charles

>> I just don't want them
>> around my school or my army (or any place where people go involuntarily) in
>> a highly official capacity. I tolerate their presence, but I don't want them
>> to be intertwined with the power structure maintened by, of, and for the
>> people.
>
--Amen, Brother Kornai!--Charles
+ - Re: beer/god (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Sat, 27 Aug 1994 15:09:18 -0700 > said:
>> --And, pray tell, what have you learned from snakes?
>
>I rather had in mind a purported ancestress of mine, who was advised
>by a snake (well, serpent, but close enough)
>"For God doth know that in the day ye eat [the fruit], then your eyes
>shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
>
--And Eve listened to the serpent, ate the fruit, and got evicted from
paradise.  I hope that you aren't offering this as a good example of
learning.  What Eve learned certainly didn't improve her condition.

--And if I may, I will offer a theological tip.  Be very careful about
reading mystical Hebrew poetic imagery as intending to convey literal
truth.  If the J writer were writing this story today, he would have
used Mr. and Mrs. John Smith instead of Adam and Eve, since those names
are the Hebrew equivalent and not intended to be taken as literal people.

--And, this is unkind, so I apologize in advance, but am I right in
supposing that you are under age 35?

Charles
+ - Re: beer/god (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

> >> --And, pray tell, what have you learned from snakes?
> >
> >I rather had in mind a purported ancestress of mine, who was advised
> >by a snake (well, serpent, but close enough)
> >"For God doth know that in the day ye eat [the fruit], then your eyes
> >shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
> >
> --And Eve listened to the serpent, ate the fruit, and got evicted from
> paradise.  I hope that you aren't offering this as a good example of
> learning.  What Eve learned certainly didn't improve her condition.

It was supposed to be a joke!

        dictionary    definitions   knowledge
        snake         fruit         knowledge of good and evil


> --And if I may, I will offer a theological tip.  Be very careful about
> reading mystical Hebrew poetic imagery as intending to convey literal
> truth.

I offer the same tip with regard to my posts.  :-)


> If the J writer were writing this story today, he would have
> used Mr. and Mrs. John Smith instead of Adam and Eve, since those names
> are the Hebrew equivalent and not intended to be taken as literal people.

Like I said, I was trying to be funny.


> --And, this is unkind, so I apologize in advance, but am I right in
> supposing that you are under age 35?
No.

--Greg
+ - Re: interpretation of the 1994 election results (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Charles writes:

> >Andra1s Kornai writes:
> >
> >> ...giving said priest one rank or another, what has this
> >> got to do with your fundamental rights?
> >
> >I think that would fall under the heading "reasonable accomodation".
> >
> --This is getting complicated, since I decided to take a hand in this.
> I'll label my intrusive comments just to keep things straight.  But Greg,
> I have to side with Mr. Kornai on this.  I am a professing Christian, but
> I don't see the justification for ANY state support of ANY religion.

Well, this ground has been covered.  As was stated, some think that the
state has a small duty to accomodate the practice of basic human rights.


> >Debatable.  Promise your 12 year old recruits paradise for death in battle,
> >and send them out to walk in mass through minefields.  Or so I've heard was
> >done
> >during the Iran/Iraq war.
> >
> --Bad argument, Greg.  Islam doesn't believe in the separation of church
> and state.

Guess who said this:
        > >> I just want separation of
        > >> Church and State, any church, any state.


> You guys may force me to try to write Hebrew on a computer
> in order to make my point.  Please take my word for it.  Christianity
> says that murder is wrong.  Not all killing is murder.  The commandment
> does not use the Hebrew word for killing.  It uses the one for murder.

We believe you.


> >> I said this perception is
> >> world-wide. To some extent I actually share this perception,
> >
> >Apology retracted!
> >
> --Greg, I think that you're being bloody-minded!

Another of my feeble attempts at humor, that's all.


> >> I just don't want them
> >> around my school or my army (or any place where people go involuntarily) i
n
> >> a highly official capacity. I tolerate their presence, but I don't want
 them
> >> to be intertwined with the power structure maintened by, of, and for the
> >> people.
> >
> --Amen, Brother Kornai!--Charles

You'll note I didn't object to this policy, either.


--Greg
+ - Opiate/Heart (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear listmembers,

I am sure that, if I were sitting in the library instead of at home
in the midst of infernal chaos (packing for a sabbatical) I could pull
the Marx quote out of some reference, and I think you would find that
in fact, both things are said, and in the same sentence.  It's one of
the famous quotations-out-of-context examples.

Now if I weren't lazy, I'd just do a Veronica search in the on-line
Marx-Engels library and find the quote.  But I am.  So I only exhort--
go and look it up and see if I'm not right!

But packing calls,

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

+ - Re: Army and Church (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Paul--

I don't consider most of the junk that comes out of Hollywood and the TV
networks to be art, and I should have been more clear to refer to fine artists,
who in fact have a miniscule influence on American society.

As for your Xtian proselytizing: gag me with a spoon! :-(

--Marc
+ - Trouble with VCR tape from Hungary (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Thanks for all the replies concerning my problem.  I have one more
question:  do the PAL and NTSC systems use the same size tapes (VHS)?  I
assumed that they didn't, but I've never seen a recording done in PAL so I
really don't know.  If they do, then obviously that's my problem.

    Norb
+ - the Church under Kadar (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Charles Atherton, in reply to Marc Nador, said:
 >>> When was the last time you saw someone declaring his heterosexuality
 >>> on TV or his religious affiliation for that matter?  Now _you_ tell
 >>> me if that's censorship, or only self-censorship?

 > Sure.  Just last night, some comedian was talking about attending a
 > parochial school and his experiences with the nuns.  Jackie Mason
 > has a whole routine about his Jewish experience.

    I assumed that Marc was talking about the main-stream news media...

 >>Pat Robertson declares his heterosexuality and his religious affiliation
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 >>withh numbing regularity.

 > --Could be, I never watch him.  You do?  I wondered who it was that
 > kept him on the air.

    ...but I guess I was wrong. ;-)

 > --I too live in the Bible belt, and can't remember reading of a gay
 > bashing here in the last twenty years.

    Where are you?

    Norb
+ - British Monarchy (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva Durant said:
 > I lived here long enough to have an idea, (about people's feelings
 > about monarchy)...

    I think most of your info concerning the people's feelings about the
monarchy come from those who hold views similar to your own, and you guys
form a fairly small minority.

 >...why should your sources be any more trustworthy than mine?

    Quite simply, because you never cited any sources.

    Norb
+ - A monarchy? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva Durant wrote:
 > ..."you are a liar" is not a good argument.

    I am surprised that even while quoting what I said (which I didn't include
here), you quite easily accuse me of saying something which I didn't.
I said that "you...employ total falsehoods in [your arguments]."  If I disagree
with you (IOTW, we are having an "argument"), doesn't that imply that I don't
find truth in your view point?

 > ...the monarchy in UK has ancient privileges unknown to most...

    Unknown to most except you and your friends who are so enlightened by the
tabloids, right?

 > ...(e.g. equal opportunity laws outruled for palace employees)...

    Totally meaningless.  The United States Congress frequently exempts itself
form legislation that it passes...I'm sure that's true in most countries.  I'm
not in favor of such practices, but it's found in all governments and for the
most part it doesn't inhibit democracy.  Also, at
most, how many are employed by the Palace?  Several hundred out of
a nation of 60 million?

 > ...[used] in Australia (getting rid of the Whitlam government) and by laws
 > drawn up in the late 16 hundreds...

    I know there was some controversy in the recent past concerning the
appointment of an Englishman rather than an Australian to the post of
governor-general, but I've never heard of this Whitlam "affair."  Please post
more on it.

 > ...they can in fact choose the prime minister by royal prerogative.

    Yes, to some extent that is true.  During the 50s and early 60s, the Queen
intervened several times to keep R. A. Butler from the prime ministership,
usually employing the counsel of non-officials.  However, I have three
questions to pose to you concerning this:  (1) why is this so different from
non-official consultation carried out in other countries
(Nixon advising Clinton on foreign policy, the Democratic Party
billionaires' club hand-picking Clinton in 1990 to be the Party's
candidate in 92, etc.), (2) given the democratic system in the UK, do you not
belive that an unpopular "royal choice" would be changed through democratic
processes, and (3) if democratic change would not be possible due to "cute"
laws (as you put it), wouldn't the British populace be in the the streets to
demand change following appointment of an unpopular PM?  I think questions 1
and 3 are somewhat subjective, but 2 isn't.  Let's see your knowledge of
mid-20th century British politics/history to see if you can answer that one
with specifics....

 > And they will, if the establishment deems it necessary.

    Establishment?  Which one?

    Norb

AGYKONTROLL ALLAT AUTO AZSIA BUDAPEST CODER DOSZ FELVIDEK FILM FILOZOFIA FORUM GURU HANG HIPHOP HIRDETES HIRMONDO HIXDVD HUDOM HUNGARY JATEK KEP KONYHA KONYV KORNYESZ KUKKER KULTURA LINUX MAGELLAN MAHAL MOBIL MOKA MOZAIK NARANCS NARANCS1 NY NYELV OTTHON OTTHONKA PARA RANDI REJTVENY SCM SPORT SZABAD SZALON TANC TIPP TUDOMANY UK UTAZAS UTLEVEL VITA WEBMESTER WINDOWS