OFF: the truth is out there

Ted Jackson jr. 6L6 tojackso at LIBRARY.SYR.EDU
Mon Dec 1 17:12:01 EST 1997


> From:          "Alex S. Garcia" <asg at LAGUNA.COM.MX>

> Guido wrote :
>
> >> Why should people in 1997 be any more
> >> enlightened than people in the Dark Ages?  Just because we have better
> >> education, better communication, etc does not FORCE people to have
> >> enlightened opinions..
> >
> >You can lead a horse to water . . . true. People often remain unenlightened
> >by choice. This is in contrast to the Dark Ages where there wasn't much
> >choice. It seems reasonable to me that, presented with the tremendous
> >educational opportunities we have today, that many people, if not most,
> >would take advantage of these opportunities. But, there are those who do
> >not have access to these opportunities, and there are those who choose to
> >be just plain ignorant, and believe in silly things like Satan..
>
> Okay. So let me see if I got this straight. To you, believing in God and
> Satan (whether or not they do exist is beyond my point) is what you call
> "unenlightened", that is to say "barbaric", perhaps, since you are talking
> about "Dark Ages" ? At the very least, you are suggesting this is due to a
> "lack of education" (since you mention educational opportunities of today as
> if Christians ignored these). And yet, and yet, my dear Guido, could I point

We have to remember that even the most 'enlightened' people of the
so-called dark ages believed in God, Satan, etc., things that to me,
at least, smack of superstition and black magic.  The enlightened
people of that age were educated in 'religious' schools, so
naturally, their training was somewhat slanted toward believing in
christianity.  Remember that a high degree of education does not
necesarily produce logical thought.  Look no further than
Harvard-educated Pat Buchanan.  You'd think that somewhere, this
rabidly catholic and ivy educated man would have somehow learned
of the futility and social destructiveness of racism and religious
extremism.  But it didn't happen that way...


> out that most Christians are usually very altruistic people, who are always
> ready to help others, honest, respectful of laws, etc... OTOH, when I look

Again, Pat Buchanan thinks he's holier than the Pope.  Remember that
the so-called Western Hemisphere was 'discovered' by Christians, who
saw the aboriginals as pagans, whose beliefs were infidel, and used
this as an excuse to take their land and slaughter and enslave them
and destroy their culture.  Read any of the tracts on early American
political thought, and you'll note that these are all Christian
scholars, and they all firmly believed that the Native Americans were
squandering this blessed gift by not 'improving' it, i.e., not
planting it in crops like the europeans would have.  This was seen as
laziness and a disrespect for god's gifts.  Hence, it was only
appropriate that this land be taken away from them and given to good
christian folk who would do with the land as god intenden it be used.
I'm not making this up to suit my point.  This is fact, and the basis
of much of early american lore.  It's sad, it's regretable, but I'm
afraid it's true no matter how unpalatable any of us may find it...

> around at the world, I am very frightened by what I see. The increase of
> violence, strong language getting worse... this is slowly working its way
> into everything, including video clips. Look at stuff by Marylin Manson,
> NIN, etc... regardless of how good the music and/or lyrics are, the videos
> are just gross and disgusting. Do we really need stuff like that ? Do you
> find it "civilized" ? "educated" ? Someone on the list mentioned that bands
> like Marilyn Manson just used this as an image, wanting to make
> "music-you-don't-want-your-kids-to-listen"... right. But what's the point ?
> I thought the goal in making music was to share it with others, and as many

Maybe it is for you and me, but obviously Manson and others have
realized it's a pretty good way of making money.  Throw the Rolling
Stones in there and the Spice Girls too.  I don't see tham as much
different...

> as possible. Besides, I think at least 80% of the people who listen to those
> bands ARE kids. I think bands use those images just to be original, to be
> "different"... but why does it have to go into such violence and gore and
> other such disgusting material ? Bowie was original in the 60's and 70's.

I can't offer you any help here.  I simply think that society,
through greed, racism, whatever, has come to view humanity itself as
debased and unworthy of respect.  Because parents need to work their
asses off just to make ends meet, they have no time for their kids,
and the kids get raised by Manson etc.  I think kids are scared by
adulthood and the prospect of nothing awaiting them at the end of the
rainbow, so they turn to negative music...

> Ziggy was an image too, but there was nothing so disgusting about it.
>
> Decadence is the word, here. So I'm sorry, Guido, but you make me laugh when
> you say that people who believe in God or Satan have chosen to be
> "unenlightened". When I compare the Christian community to the rest of the
> world, I can tell you this : the Christian community seems much more
> "normal" - and once again, I'm not talking about beliefs, but about the way
> people act.
>
Look, we will have to agree to disagree.  I'm no atheist, I just
don't think much of organized religion.  To me, the Christian
community seems more concerned with controlling people than anything
else.  Obviously you think otherwise and I respect your views...

And, FWIW, I agree with what you just posted about Imaginos!



theo
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"...it's legal, but it ain't a hundred percent legal..."
v.vega



More information about the boc-l mailing list