OT: Ignorance regarding the American Religeous Right

Aug 4, 2000, 9:37 PM ET59 posts by 15 postersalt.tv.daria
59 posts
Daryl Sawyeralt.tv.daria

One thing I noticed during Alli's little argument with Christopher was her comments regarding people's opinions of homosexuals. It seems she either doesn't know of or refuses to aknowledge the existance of, or the sheer unreasonable nature of, the American Religeous Right (as in right-wing). I can't help but wonder how ignorant most of the rest of the world is about this.

I would like to begins the discussion by asking this question of our friends outside the U.S. Note that I ask this with genuine curiosity, and not out of some attempt to prove a point. Have you ever heard of Oliver Cromwell? What do your schools teach about him?

If it seems like the questions are a statement, please don't think this. I am always curious on how other countries, particularly Britain, regard aspects of history that I learned about in my own American schools, such as what their degree of importance is, and what the proscribed attitude toward certain fhistorical igures and events are.

Yes, I do protest too much. I made some pretty strong statements in response to Contentious Objector earlier. In truth, I just wanted to see how he'd react to his own style of argument. I *can* flame, if I so desire, I just usually prefer not to.

"Daryl Sawyer" wrote in message news:[email]...

I think I will just keep my opinion on Homosexuality to myself.

Oliver Cromwell? Who is that?

Oh Yeah, the horrible traitor, to bad he was already dead when he went to the gallows,

I guess the best modern example of the English civil war would be Apple Computer, If Steve Jobs wasn't given the boot in 1985 he would have driven Apple into the ground, Had he not returned in 1997 Apple would have seized to exist. Had the king remained in power England and the colonies would have fell apart. At the same time had the English Republic survived it would have eventually fell into French hands, So I guess sometimes bad things have to happen for the greater good, and no Lady Interferance, the death penalty does NOT count.

I was 4 years old when my family moved to Canada, I have never been to school in England, Here Cromwell is portrayed as a traitor

Did I miss something?

I don't recall you saying anything to me,

As for my style of argument, the above certainly is not!

No, But I did goto Benidict Arnold Elementry school

No, After the monarchy was restored after Cromwells death, The new king ordered Oliver Cromwell be dug up and tried for treason, although given he was already dead, they skiped the trial and just hanged his corpse,

Phill, Shez, Martin or Alli, Care to back me up on this.

[email] (The Contentious Objector) wrote in :

Err, would if I could rember anything from when I covered this in history at school oh about 20 odd years ago :)

Sorry :)

Phill.

Contentious Objector said:

Was Miss Kisskillya working for them yet? :)

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

"Let us go out then, and claim our inheritance. We belong to a tradition in which the concept of defeat has no meaning. Today the stars and tomorrow the galaxies. No force exists in the universe that can stop us." (Hogan)

On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 02:07:15 GMT, "The Contentious Objector" wrote:

The "majority" think of him as a degenerate traitor and sellout. : )

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton

And if some chance had meant the war had gone the other way, the majority would think the opposite.

I suspect the American Revolution may have been like most Civil Wars/Revolutions ie.

15% Fanatically supporting one side 15% Fanatically supporting the other side 70% Fanatically on the side of whoever looks like they're going to win.

Michael Morton >==========================================================< School of Information Systems | Everything is linear if University of East Anglia | plotted on log-log with

On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 20:25:10 +0100, Michel Morton wrote:

But fortunately the good guys won! : )

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton

The good guy's always win. Or at least, nobody dares contradict the winners if they choose to call themselves good. :-)

Michael Morton >==========================================================< School of Information Systems | Everything is linear if University of East Anglia | plotted on log-log with

[email] (Michel Morton) wrote in :

Guess it all boils down to it being the winners who write the history books, and they tend to paint a picture that glosses over any bad things they may have done and try and paint the other side, as the childeren of Satan or whatever other evil personified they choose to use.

Phill.

Columbus was Italian (Genoese). In the 15th century, mercenary service was common; he was a naval mercenary commanding ships and bases for various patrons, ultimately the Spanish monarchy.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

"Let us go out then, and claim our inheritance. We belong to a tradition in which the concept of defeat has no meaning. Today the stars and tomorrow the galaxies. No force exists in the universe that can stop us." (Hogan)

On Sun, 06 Aug 2000 22:41:42 -0400, Christopher Morton wrote:

Revisionist history. The same thing portion of the American school system that tells you:

1) Columbus discovered America 2) American Revolution was about the values of democracy (as opposed to the upper class Americans wanting a piece of that tax pie, as well as being annoyed by Britain's upper class snubbing them) 3) The South never had a chance in the Civil War

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Well, I agree with you on the first 2 for the most part, but i was never told that the south never had a chance in the Civil War. Becuase I'm from New York, and I would imagine this is the case throughout the northeast, there was a bias against the South in the attitude of the class, but from what I remember, we were told that the South was winning for a good portion of the time up until Gettysburg.

Jon Reiss AIM: NukeBuddha http://www.j51.com/~improv Ralph Nader for Prez!

On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 11:39:57 -0400, Jon Reiss wrote:

We were told that too. And then told that the north's industrial advantages made their victory inevitable.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

In article ,

opposed

well

never

I'm from

northeast,

from

portion

Given that the North's desire to win the war was sufficiently strong, victory WAS inevitable, for the reasons you give.

There was, however, much opposition and apathy toward the war in the North, especially at the beginning. Many Northerners didn't feel that their country would be the worse off without the South; opponents of slavery would just as soon jettison the slave states; businessmen saw the South as an economic backwater irrelevant to the nation's economy. And many felt that whatever the merits of Lincoln's position, it wasn't worth getting a large percentage of the nation's young men killed over.

There was less opposition in the South, especially in the beginning. Their whole way of life was threatened.

A Southern victory at Gettysburg might have prompted a settlement from the North.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

my favorite myth is that the civil war was about slavery.it was about money, like almost all wars. Saerah "Are we going to the same place? if so, can I come?" ~ Eddie Vedder "The Almighty thinks he can get me out of this, but he's pretty sure you're fucked."~Stephen (from Braveheart) "Practice deliberate acts of kindness and purposeful acts of beauty"

On 7 Aug 2000 15:15:43 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:

Nah, he was a traitor. You may like that he turned traitor, but a traitor he was nonetheless.

He was the first ITALIAN to discover America... not counting the odd Roman. : )

It was about money AND democracy. The two are not mutually exclusive.

It didn't. The South lost the civil war in the same way that Japan lost WWII. It was buried under mountains of industrially produced goods. As long as neither Lincoln nor FDR simply gave up, Jeff Davis and Tojo lost before they got into the game.

Yankee steel and an endless supply of ammunition will beat Bushido or Southern Chivalry armed only with a bayonet every time. Gettysburg and Saipan are the proof.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton

On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 18:14:06 -0400, Christopher Morton wrote:

He was a patriot in a country full of traitors.

I don't think a discovery should count if you don't realize you've discovered it...

If the money hadn't been there, I doubt the democracy would have been. I can't say the same for the other way around.

If I recall my civil war history, Gettysburg was a darned close battle.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

On 7 Aug 2000 23:21:11 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:

Nah, he was a traitor in a country full of patriots. He didn't switch sides out of conviction anyway, just self-aggrandizement and ego.

1/2 of science wouldn't count under those terms.

Property is one of the essences of liberty.

Not that close. If McLellan had been in charge the South would have won. He wasn't.

The side which blundered the least won.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton

On 11 Aug 2000 02:33:11 GMT, [email] (KTrick45) wrote:

This is similar to the reason why Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed Teddy Kennedy. It was a PID, or _____ Influenced Decision.... : )

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton

ok, here's a little hint... if there are people already living there, you havent discovered it. Saerah "Are we going to the same place? if so, can I come?" ~ Eddie Vedder "The Almighty thinks he can get me out of this, but he's pretty sure you're fucked."~Stephen (from Braveheart) "Practice deliberate acts of kindness and purposeful acts of beauty"

On 12 Aug 2000 07:06:43 GMT, [email] (Saerah Schreiber) wrote:

So then I discovered New York City in 1997? : )

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
Martin J. PollardKylealt.tv.daria

On 7 Aug 2000 23:21:11 GMT, herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote:

Didn't we go over all this already about a month or two ago? <grin>

Actually, Gettysburg was not quite the close battle you seem to believe it was. Oh, perhaps it was at first, like any battle is, but at Gettysburg, victory for either side depended mainly on gaining the high ground (the Big and Little Round Tops) and other strategic positions. Once the Union army gained those positions, Lee never had a chance to win that battle because the Union held all the cards; unfortunately, Lee's hubris wouldn't allow him to retreat, and he nearly got the Army of Northern Virginia pounded into dust (Pickett's Charge is the best example; Lee insisted that he move against the Union army, despite protests from all his officers from Longstreet on down, and all it accomplished was to get Pickett's division wiped out almost to the last man).

The closest battle at Gettysburg that I can recall is the battle at Little Round Top, but Chamberlain's borne-of-desperation bayonet charge against the Southern attackers -- which gave the North posession of Little Round Top -- pretty much sealed that battle. An inspired move.

Martin
(send all e-mail to "[email]")
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
    Outpost Daria: The Internet's Premiere Website for Daria Fans
      New, easy-to-remember URL:  http://www.outpost-daria.com

On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 20:33:44 -0400, Martin J. Pollard wrote:

And well portrayed in the movie "Gettysburg". A standout performance by Jeff Daniels.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton

On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 03:13:15 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

Yes, you're wrong.

He was an Italian in the service of the King and Queen of Spain. Genoese, I think.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton

On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 03:13:15 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

Columbus was Italian. He was hired by the King and Queen of Spain to plund... er, find new territory, and happened to hit the jackpot purely by happenstance. :-)

Martin
(send all e-mail to "[email]")
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
    Outpost Daria: The Internet's Premiere Website for Daria Fans
      New, easy-to-remember URL:  http://www.outpost-daria.com

On Sun, 06 Aug 2000 22:41:42 -0400, Christopher Morton wrote:

Actually, the flip side is that if he had taken the American side, he would've abandoned his duties his rank afforded him.

But this is a can of worms that shouldn't be opened, unless we want to have a pointless debate about causes. The man was a British general, thus, he fought on the side of the British (and the Americans) during the French and Indian War (anybody want to refresh me on the European name of that war... the Spanish Succession or something?), and fought on the side of the British during the Revolutionary War.

<shrug> I prefer not to judge when the lines were being drawn anew.

The Seven Years War. The War of the Spanish Succession took place about 50 years before (1701-1714).

Michael Morton >==========================================================< School of Information Systems | Everything is linear if University of East Anglia | plotted on log-log with

On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 14:30:10 +0100, Michel Morton wrote:

The War of the AUSTRIAN Succession, I believe.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton

In article , Christopher

No that was the immediately previous war (1740-48) which led to the dispute over Silesia which was a major cause of the Seven Years War (1756-1763).

Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm Brett Paul Dunbar

Definitely Spanish. The Austrian one came later.

Michael Morton >==========================================================< School of Information Systems | Everything is linear if University of East Anglia | plotted on log-log with

On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:48:33 +0100, Michel Morton wrote:

I meant the French and Indian War.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton

On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 19:24:13 -0400, Christopher Morton wrote:

I know there were two wars over the successions of two countries: Spain and Austria. I'm pretty sure Austria was before Spain, but I'm not sure. Dang it, time to dig out that history book of mine...

Well, I can't find it. It's laying around here somewhere from the last time I referenced it. I'll probably forget all about this by the time I stumble across it.

There were four colonial wars. Two were the succession wars. There were two others. Don't know the order.

Michel Morton wrote:

Next: What do you call the device between the frieze and the triglyph in a classical Doric entablature?

Peace Kevin

On 11 Aug 2000 02:30:25 GMT, [email] (KTrick45) wrote:

Steely Dan! : )

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton

On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 11:26:31 +0100, Brett Paul Dunbar wrote:

He appologized for joining the lobster backs?

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton

In article , Christopher

No he repented his treasonous involvement in the colonial rebellion and resumed his earlier loyalty to the crown.

Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm Brett Paul Dunbar

On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 01:22:38 +0100, Brett Paul Dunbar wrote:

In other words, he was a pathetic traitor, no good to anyone.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton

On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 04:29:45 +0100, Brett Paul Dunbar wrote:

No, he was a SERIAL traitor.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton

On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 02:07:15 GMT, "The Contentious Objector" wrote:

Actually, I think Arnold probably made the best choice he could' ve made, as well. I don't exactly swallow revolutionary propaganda.

The reason I suggested him is because, the way it was written, you seemed to be being sarcastic about a potential American viewpoint. And besides, you didn't answer the question, anyway. I probably shouldn't have replied in the first place.

On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:18:05 GMT, [email] (Daryl Sawyer) wrote:

No, Oliver Cromwell, the Republican victor in the English Civil War.

There's a [supposedly] good movie about him starring Richard Harris.

Imagine Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, only as a religious fanatic who hated Catholics instead of Black people... who won the Civil War and became dictator of the United States, imposing nationwide "blue laws" to prevent "frivolity".

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton

I think most of us are aware of them but with the UK being an essentially secular country we see religious fundamentalism as being somebody else's problem, and fingers crossed it will stay that way.

I didn't study history but I recall he was the guy who temporarily overthrew the monarchy and declared a republic ("The Commonwealth"). Personally I'm more intrigued by the earlier period when the English invaded Britain, but I don't know a lot about that either.

I've never attached much importance to history.

I'm not aware of anything being proscribed. History gets rewritten all the time of course, and some stuff we hear about now would have been hidden previously. Also every country (and every generation) puts its own spin on history, which suggests much of it is subjective opinion.

-Shez.

"I can't decide whether to commit suicide or go bowling." -- Florence Henderson Take a break at the Last Stop Cafe: http://www.xerez.demon.co.uk/

being bisexual and more or less "out" i would imagine that the reactions i have gotten from this are fairly representative of opinions of homosexuals in this country. i can't know that much of american *anything*, having never been there.

we were taught about him in primary school, so most of what i learnt has been forgotten. any attempt to describe the extent of my knowledge about him would come out rather garbled. :)

I took GCSE history, and all of it was 20th century stuff.. we did communist russia, the wall street crash, germany before and during the Nazis, and the world wars.

alli; http://www.btinternet.com/~yannaco

Alli said:

What sorts of reactions have you gotten?

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

"Let us go out then, and claim our inheritance. We belong to a tradition in which the concept of defeat has no meaning. Today the stars and tomorrow the galaxies. No force exists in the universe that can stop us." (Hogan)

[email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote in :

With no offense intended to either Jordan or Alli....

<Beavis> Aggghhh help he's got a boner ! Aggghhh get off me fartknocker ! </Beavis>

Actually I do have friends who are both gay and bi-sexual (multiple friends that is, not friends that is who are both :) ), and have never felt threatened or anything by any of them, and personally I treat them as individuals same as all my straight friends. I also have no problems with public displays of affection between gay/bi people. Also AFAICT I possibly think that some (straight) men are worried that the gay men would be hitting on them, because they seem to have the mistaken view that gays go round sleeping with any man they can rather than forming stable relationships like "normal" people do.

Phill.

i always assumed it was often merely because they assume that gay men act towards men the way they themselves act towards women.

alli; http://www.btinternet.com/~yannaco

On Sun, 06 Aug 2000 18:09:50 +0100, missy aggravation wrote:

Which is in fact, sometimes the case.

I suspect that the operative factor is maleness rather than sexual orientation.

--- Gun control, the theory that Black people will be better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.

Check out:

http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton

[email] (missy aggravation) wrote in :

Well yes that as well :) But then again some guys act that way towards women, I mean go round trying to get off with almost anyone female :) Perhaps it's just my rather skewed at times view on life :)

Phill.

[email] (missy aggravation) wrote in :

Which I suppose is a "good" thing, at least you've had no out and out hostility, well that you have been aware of. Of course in an ideal world, you'd just be accepted for what you are but I guess also that that's just a dream and I'll probably never see it in my liftime unfortunatly.

Phill.

ive never been able to understand why someone would fuck a person of a gender they are not attracted to becasue its "trendy". then again, i dont understand how one could bnot be attracted to at least some members of both genders, so.... Saerah "Are we going to the same place? if so, can I come?" ~ Eddie Vedder "The Almighty thinks he can get me out of this, but he's pretty sure you're fucked."~Stephen (from Braveheart) "Practice deliberate acts of kindness and purposeful acts of beauty"

OK--- from dimly recalled memory.

Fanatically hated Catholics.

Believed the King shouldn't have absolute power. But he was _no_ democrat. His idea of devolving power to the people was that the people like him, ie wealthy landowners and aristocrats should share power. After the civil was he was responsible for the brutal suppression of a group called the Levelers whose ideas where close to our modern idea of democracy.

Was a decent military commander. He essentially invented the idea of a modern, professional army.

Said army was very useful when Parliament won the civil war. As it was more loyal to him personally then the Parliamentary cause it was not too difficult to become dictator in all but name.

He closed all the theaters and banned Christmas.

Michael Morton >==========================================================< School of Information Systems | Everything is linear if University of East Anglia | plotted on log-log with