<DIV>Paul,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>We have modern day slavery today in the United States. It goes by the name of illegal immigration. Many people are all for it and promote the second class citizenship of these people and even boast the economic benefits by allowing this people into the country to live on wages that create essentially slaves for the production of goods by wealthy corporations.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If slavery was kept legal and involved to slightly improve their living conditions over the years between 1864 and to today it would look exactly like it does today, only the slaves today are Hispanic, not Black. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan<BR><BR><B><I>Paul Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">I just think it's the actions you have to protest, and not the
beliefs. <BR>In this case, the action that some feel the need to protest appears to <BR>be the buying of a parcel of land in the downtown area that will be used <BR>to build a church. So, the logical people to protest that decision to <BR>would be the people who made the decision, not the followers of the <BR>church (99% of which had nothing to do with it).<BR><BR>Members of Christ Church have every right to believe what they do about <BR>slavery, the role of women, and the status of gays. They have every <BR>right to promote those beliefs either by discussing them directly or <BR>indirectly through the medium of artistic expression. It's not like <BR>they are the first Christian religious group to come up with the idea <BR>that women are not equal to men or that homosexuality is an <BR>abomination. I don't know where the slavery thing comes from, but it's <BR>no farther out in left field than other beliefs I've run across.<BR><BR>If you believe that people have the right
to free expression, then you <BR>can't throw that out the first time you run across a group that differs <BR>in their views from you. I don't think that we should be organizing <BR>protests based solely on the beliefs of a group of people. Specific <BR>actions that affect us, yes, but not simply because they don't believe <BR>as we do.<BR><BR>That being said, of course those that disagree have the right to speak <BR>up about it. I just don't agree with that tactic.<BR><BR>Now, if they try to pass a law that no women can hold office in Moscow <BR>or that crimes committed by homosexuals carry double the normal penalty <BR>or something, then I'll be right there with you trying to stop it. <BR><BR>Paul<BR><BR><BR><BR>Ted Moffett wrote:<BR>> <BR>> Joe, Paul et. al.<BR>> <BR>> I'm not very certain that art produced by an organization that <BR>> advocates a, how should I phrase it, authoritarian ideology that <BR>> promotes second class citizen status for women
and Gay individuals, at <BR>> best, should be viewed as harmless fun, or a less harmful diversion <BR>> from their other activities to expand their ideology and power. Art <BR>> has often been used by significant authoritarian ideologies to <BR>> proselytize and promote their agenda. Art can be a very effective <BR>> tool for this purpose. If the promotion of Christ Church's power in <BR>> Moscow deserves protest, then I am not certain why (except perhaps <BR>> relating to the psychology of the most effective tactics of changing <BR>> public opinion) protesting an art event should be any less of a target <BR>> than protesting several of the other activities associated with the <BR>> Trinity Festival. Of course this depends on how protest is conducted, <BR>> as always.<BR>> <BR>> Even if the play appears harmless from the point of view of any of the <BR>> objectionable themes (slavery, women and Gay rights) that have raised <BR>>
the ire of many, it may still be a very effective public relations <BR>> tool to promote the power and acceptance of this church in the <BR>> community. Of course a protest aimed at this play might back fire due <BR>> to being viewed as going too far, creating sympathy for Christ <BR>> Church. Indeed, it appears that painting those who oppose Christ <BR>> Church as unreasonable activists who are unfairly singling out this <BR>> church for criticism is an effective tactic to encourage sympathy. <BR>> Any protest regarding Christ Church might back fire in this manner.<BR>> <BR>> I'm writing in these comments from a realistic point of view regarding <BR>> the politics, the tactics of manipulating public opinion and promoting <BR>> an organization's power and influence, or trying to lessen the power <BR>> of an organization via activism and protest. To make an admittedly <BR>> hyperbolic and worn out comparison, if the Nazi party in
Germany in <BR>> 1935 was staging a harmless comedy to promote the public acceptance <BR>> and image of their party, would it be reasonable to view this as a <BR>> innocent art oriented event?<BR>> <BR>> Regarding Spinoza, I once posted info on Spinoza to Vision2020, back <BR>> when many Christ Church members posted with their real names with <BR>> regularity. The response by some Christ Church members to the <BR>> philosophical and theological views of Spinoza, a philosopher I have <BR>> enjoyed reading who I think makes some excellent arguments, was not <BR>> very sympathetic. I won't go into the details, but Spinoza's approach <BR>> to theology and philosophy I am certain contradicts the theological <BR>> views of Christ Church's "intelligentsia." I would therefore be <BR>> surprised if, given there is any attempt to present Spinoza's <BR>> philosophy in detail, that he would receive a fair and accurate <BR>>
portrayal.<BR>> <BR>> Ted Moffett<BR>><BR>> <BR>> On 8/3/07, *Joe Campbell* <JOEKC@ADELPHIA.NET <br>> <?xml:namespace prefix = mailto /><mailto:joekc@adelphia.net>> wrote:<BR>><BR>> Of course, most of the people gathering in Friendship Square<BR>> tonight have been to planning and zoning meetings, as have many of<BR>> the Kirk. That's what makes things so frustrating.<BR>><BR>> I agree with you and with Nick, though, that protesting the<BR>> Kenworthy goes too far. Mind you, I have not talked to anyone<BR>> about this, so I don't know why one would want to do such a thing.<BR>> Of course, if it turns out that play about Spinoza makes insulting<BR>> comments about him, that might be enough to make me protest.<BR>> Philosophers have got to stick together!<BR>><BR>> Lastly, I didn't want to suggest, by noting the history of the<BR>> NSA, that a Cathedral downtown would be illegal. I don't know one<BR>> way or
the other. There are other issues to consider, though.<BR>><BR>> Best, Joe<BR>><BR>><BR>> ---- Paul Rumelhart <GODSHATTER@YAHOO.COM<BR>> <mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com>> wrote:<BR>><BR>> =============<BR>> It sounds like people should be protesting at the zoning and planning<BR>> commission then or what ever body it is that allows these things to<BR>> happen instead of at a gathering of their followers. That makes more<BR>> sense to me than disturbing an event that will have families with<BR>> children who are simply trying their best to have a good time.<BR>><BR>> I do understand that you have no intention of disturbing their<BR>> festival,<BR>> I'm just talking generally here.<BR>><BR>> Paul<BR>><BR>> Joe Campbell wrote:<BR>> > Paul,<BR>> ><BR>> > Another good set of questions!<BR>> ><BR>> > You write: "Doesn't freedom of religion trump simple dislike for<BR>> the church or
some of it's members?"<BR>> ><BR>> > Certainly it does.<BR>> ><BR>> > You also ask: "But why disturb their festival? What is their<BR>> political and economic agendas that these activists are protesting?"<BR>> ><BR>> > I have no plans to disturb their festival, though I am<BR>> interested in who wrote the play about Spinoza in which Doug<BR>> stars. (And I'm still waiting for my tickets!)<BR>> ><BR>> > As for political and economic agendas, NSA has succeeded—after<BR>> three distinct conflicts with zoning laws—in suggesting that<BR>> colleges and universities have a right to the downtown area, thus<BR>> rendering it a matter of mercy that the UI doesn't take over. And<BR>> then there is this recent issue of their cathedral being located<BR>> downtown, which opens up the question of: Why stop there? Why not<BR>> locate all cathedrals, churches, temples, tombs, and tomes<BR>> downtown? What have we
got to lose? And if not all, why them?<BR>> ><BR>> > Is that enough?<BR>> ><BR>> > Best, Joe<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > =======================================================<BR>> > List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>> > http://www.fsr.net<BR>> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> <mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com><BR>> > =======================================================<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> =======================================================<BR>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>> http://www.fsr.net<BR>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com <mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com><BR>> =======================================================<BR>><BR>><BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services
made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net <BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com></mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com></mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com></mailto:joekc@adelphia.net><p> 
<hr size=1>Shape Yahoo! in your own image.
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48517/*http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7">Join our Network Research Panel today!</a>