kwmc@mtuxo.UUCP (k.cochran) (01/17/86)
> Since when is this autodialing campaign "suppress[ing] Jerry Falwell's right > to freedom of speech"? Perhaps I would have more sympathy for your viewpoint, > except that the primary goals of these evangelistic churches are (in order of > attention given by the church and therefore, one must assume, in order of > importance to the church): > > 1) Perpetuation of the church > 2) Growth (membership growth, not spelled m-o-r-e- -b-e-l-i-e-v-e-r-s, but spelled m-o-r-e- -m-o-n-e-y and spelled m-o-r-e- -p-o-l-i-t-i-c-a-l i-n-f-l-u-e-n-c-e) > 3) Bringing the church's programs/ideals/philosophies to fruition (a very distant third) By encouraging other's to illegally harass organizations and tie up their phone lines they are interfering with the ability of that organization and its supporters to communicate. A country gets the kind of TV it wants. If people pay for air time for Jerry Falwell, that's what they get. If people pay for magazines which have commercials implying that cigarette smoking is a step FORWARD for women and buy that brand, of course it perpetuates such nonsense. That is their right. It is interesting to note that many Tv/radio religious broadcasters (the reputable ones) recognize the problem of financial responsibility and make a point of publishing their financial policies and accounts and have formed the ECFA (Ecumenical Council for Financial Accountability) Such organizations include Focus on the Family and The Navigators. Your statement that implies ALL evangelicals are money hungry and irresponsible is just NOT TRUE. Ken Cochran mtuxo!kwmc
mdf@osu-eddie.UUCP (Mark D. Freeman) (01/18/86)
In article <1231@mtuxo.UUCP> kwmc@mtuxo.UUCP (k.cochran) writes: >> Since when is this autodialing campaign "suppress[ing] Jerry Falwell's right >> to freedom of speech"? >It is interesting to note that many Tv/radio religious broadcasters (the >reputable ones) recognize the problem of financial responsibility and >make a point of publishing their financial policies and accounts and have >formed the ECFA (Ecumenical Council for Financial Accountability) Such >organizations include Focus on the Family and The Navigators. Your statement >that implies ALL evangelicals are money hungry and irresponsible is just >NOT TRUE. Is Rev. Falwell a member of ECFA? How about Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts, or thaclown who's wife buys the extra-runny mascara so she can cry a lot about all the money they need at look extra-pitiful (PTL Club or 700 Club?)? Most of the TV evangelists do NOT belong, and keep their accounting a deep, dark secret, and will lecture you on the benefits of having faith in them and their bookkeepers, eqRG~ating faith in their accounting with faith in God (i.e. if you really believe in Jesus, you wouldn't ask those questions). Flame at will, I'm ready! -- <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark D. Freeman Guest account at The Ohio State University StrongPoint Systems, Inc. mdf@osu-eddie.UUCP 209 Olentangy Street Mdf@Ohio-State.CSNET Columbus, OH 43202-2340 Mdf%Ohio-State@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA !cbosgd!osu-eddie!mdf I disclaim even my very existance. Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western religion, Rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western science. -- Gary Zukav from "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (01/19/86)
In article <1231@mtuxo.UUCP> kwmc@mtuxo.UUCP (k.cochran) writes: >It is interesting to note that many Tv/radio religious broadcasters (the >reputable ones) recognize the problem of financial responsibility and >make a point of publishing their financial policies and accounts and have >formed the ECFA (Ecumenical Council for Financial Accountability) Such >organizations include Focus on the Family and The Navigators. Your statement >that implies ALL evangelicals are money hungry and irresponsible is just >NOT TRUE. My deepest apologies -- I did not intend to condemn all evangelicals, nor did I even intend to condemn all *TV* evangelicals. On re-reading I realize that you are very correct in your interpretation and I should have been more specific in my attack. To be more specific, in fact, I would say that my original article should apply to all of, but not just, the following: Jerry Falwell PTL Club * Earnest Angesley (sp?) * I must give the PTL Club some respite, however; since I must acknowledge the joy and gales of laughter my friends and I enjoyed whenever we were a little down and turned to our television set and Tammy Baker for comic relief. It worked every time -- 20 minutes of watching Tammy Baker could make any of us realize that our lives just weren't that bad -- we would end up hanging our heads in shame at our earlier self-pity and say, "There but for the grace of self-respect go I." Thanks for pointing out my faulty implication so I could set the record straight -- I am very sure that there are many worthy evangelicals out there -- too bad they don't have the power of the Falwells of this world with which to work their good... -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj