On Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:41:38 +0100 Eva Durant said:
>>
>Newcastle Brown seems to be the only one not bitter!

--Well, it's the only British beer I had on hand!

 That is one of
>the things I can't comprehend, people enjoying something bitter

--Bitter beer isn't really bitter in the usual sense of the word.
It's just more robust and tangy.  Sorry that you haven't learned
to appreciate one of life's great pleasures, but I still think that,
in spite of this, you must be a good person!

>(the other one is being religious)

--Depends on what you mean by religious, doesn't it?  Like G. K.
Chesterton, I'm too much of a rationalist *not* to believe in the
existence of God and while I am not confident that the organized
religions have a corner on truth, I attend one with some regularity.
In fact, I may be the oldest altar boy in the entire Church of England!
My wife and I attend an 8:00 service with a bunch of other older
people, mostly retired University types.  I would describe myself
as a skeptic.  But I can't escape the nagging feeling that there
is something beyond what humans understand and the universe is not
just a huge cosmic joke.  While I agree that much evil has been done
in the name of religion, I do not hold God responsible for that, but
attribute it to the limitations and imperfections of human understanding.
I am troubled by people who claim that God is on their side.  Seems to
me the proper question is "Who is on God's side?"  Sorry.  I'm preaching,
aren't I?  Oh, well, as you said, you can live with it.

If being curious about the meaning of existence makes me religious, then
I'll have to plead guilty as charged.

But do try some of the local bitter.  At least try the mild!

Charles

On Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:28:40 FST H. MARC said:
  I just don't
>understand this strange phenomenon.  Boston is becoming more European, Paris i
s
>gobbling up American Plastic Food.

--Life is strange isn't it?  I live in a small Southern city in the U.S.
Our local tire factory is owned by Michelin.  Our steel plant is a
subsidiary of British Steel.  We have a Japanese factory that makes
audio and video tapes.  Mercedes is building a factory here.  One
can buy French wine, Scottish jams, English tea, bratwurst, and kim
chee in the local supermarkets.  We also get Hungarian wine and paprika.
There is an shop called the Oriental Grocery which sells mostly Chinese
stuff.  We also have an Indian grocery.  What on earth is the world
coming to?  It is a mystery to me!  And here am I tapping out a message
to some guy in France on the Internet!  Good God, this might end up with
us all being able to relate to each other!  Must be some kind of a damn
Commie plot!

Bubba

When I was living in Boston I remember complaining once about all the AU BON
PAINS that were popping up all over.  Despite th fact that I was a loyal
customer.  AU BON PAIN is a sort of pseudo-french style takeout cafe with
good strong coffee (instead of traditional american "Jus des Chausettes"),
croisants and sandwiches with french (unfortunately pasteurized) cheese.  They
are all over Boston now.
     When I arrived in Paris in June I was shocked to notice all the McDonald's
that have popped up since I was last here.  THere are over thirty of them in
Paris now.  And in a country known for it's quality cuisine!  I just don't
understand this strange phenomenon.  Boston is becoming more European, Paris is
gobbling up American Plastic Food.
....marc horchler
20 Rue du Moulin Vert
     75014, Paris FRANCE
     

I lived here long enough to have an idea, (about people's feelings
about monarchy) anyway, why should your sources be any more
trustworthy than mine? Eva Durant

PAUL WROTE:
Artists ARE to blame for the "decline of civilization and the corruption of
American womanhood', so to speak.  The daily grinding away of morals by
day after day publicly displaying indecent images, especially to the young,
who then are taught by these images that, hey, there is nothing wrong with
meeting someone in a bar at 9pm, and being in his/her pants by 11pm.  Good
clean, healthy sex - good exercise, like jogging, and it relieves stress.
Well, it's not ok.  Such images are against Christian teachings, and most


Hmm...  So do you suppose the Boston Symphony orchestra is a vulgar influence
on the young?  I suppose that most of the american art museums also pose a
threat to civilization.  My, the last time I was at the MFA I saw a large
publicly funded exhibit on Reubens, another artist reponsible for the decline
of civilization.  PBS, the only publicly funded channel on TV, is definetly
a bad influence on the young.  Big Bird trying to teach children how to read?!
Whoa! is that dangerous.  Or all those nature shows.
     The fact is, most of the so-called art that is destroying the moraland
cultural fabric of america (like there ever was one) is mostly art made for
money.  Madonna, Rambo, Debbie does Dallas, NYPD Blue, and what have you,
these are all products of the free-market, not publicly funded art.


.marc horchler

> was a romantic adventure.  I miss the bitter!  Come to think of it,
> there's a few bottles of Newcastle Brown Ale in the fridge.  Excuse me.
>
Newcastle Brown seems to be the only one not bitter! That is one of
the things I can't comprehend, people enjoying something bitter
(the other one is being religious) but I can live with it. Eva Durant

To Whom It May Concern. I have been very dissappointed when trying to
get more information. I have a great candidate for this type of job
and when the call was made it was a frustrating recorded message, and
did not even mentioned the Fascell Fellowship. Please send a contact
number or address so we can get the proper information
Sincerely
S.Marits
Marits @fauvax. bitnet

Dear Hungarian listers--has the  Hungarian Academy  of  Science's
          Ne'prajzi kutato' csoport  become  the Ne'prajzi kutato'inte'zet?
          Ken  

> It's just more robust and tangy.  Sorry that you haven't learned
> to appreciate one of life's great pleasures, but I still think that,
> in spite of this, you must be a good person!

I will give it another go! (I lived with this pejudice fartoo
long)

> I m troubled by people who claim that God is on their side.  Seems to
> me the proper question is "Who is on God's side?"  Sorry.  I'm preaching,
> aren't I?  Oh, well, as you said, you can live with it.
>
> If being curious about the meaning of existence makes me religious, then
> I'll have to plead guilty as charged.
>
> But do try some of the local bitter.  At least try the mild!
>
> Charles

I am totally confused. I thought if you were a rationalist, you
had no reason to believe in a God? I am also curious, so far my conclu-
sion is that the meaning of (human) existence is to get to know
as much as possible about the world, pass on the knowledge and have
a good time, also try to avoid other people having a bad time.
Do I need a God for this?  Eva Durant

Sorry for that long posting, it is a followup to two previous
articles that appeared on Slovak-L a couple of days ago. Some
readers on this list still may remember the unknown poster in
May who signed his contributions as Apponyi. This is the reason
why I believe it is appropriate to bring the article also here.

Roman Kanala

------------------------


In article >, sent on 22 Aug 1994
02:54:44 GMT,  (Tony Pace), Ford Motor Research
Labs, under subject Re: <None>, Mr. Tony Pace
publicly accused me to be the responsible person who falsified a
username at Ford Motor Company, posted as user "Applications
Manager", and signed his texts under pseudonyme Apponyi.

Let's recall the facts, first as I already reported them on Sunday,
21 Aug 1994 22:39:02 GMT under subject <None>, concerning an another
mailing list, events occured in May 1994:
---

1. There is Tony Pace intervening under his own name as Tony Pace,
   >

2. There is someone at Ford Motor Company who has access with admini-
   strator authority to machines at the Research Center and has either
   created himself a username under identifier Applications Manager,
   >, signed Apponyi, or changed the SMTP
   sender address headers, as some mailers allow to do this. Where the
   pseudonyme comes from can be seen immediately from the Tony's
   precedent posting.

3. Arguments as well as the style used by the latter are incredibly
   similar to usual Tony's rambling style as pointed out by several
   contributors. One can see the same portions of text being recycled
   often in other Tony's postings even on Slovak-L. For this, see the
   Tony's contributions under subject Re: Gemer Was Re: VOA Report 9
   Aug 94, where both Apponyi and Bjornstjerne are mentioned.

4. One of contributors goes as far as to call the unknown Ford poster
   to be Tony "Applications Manager" Pace... No formal denial neither
   from the side of Applications Manager nor of Tony.

5. Applications Manager at Ford continues to play the game and quotes
   Tony as a third person. Tony does not contribute anymore under his
   own name for a longer period.

6. One Applications Manager's contribution to this list crossposted to
   Slovak-L. Tony is gladly putting Applications' Manager allegations
   into the mouth of the messenger, which in this case happened to be
   my humble person... See Slovak-L, Tue, 3 May 1994, quoted back by Tony
   (on Slovak-L, under his own name) on 6 May 1994:

>It seems to me that a couple of the recent quotations were attributed
>to Jewish authors, in a prior posting Roman contributed with:
>
>> Yeshayahu A. Jelinek characterized it this way in his book
>> Dr. Jozef Tiso and the Slovak state: at the edge of the problem.

   It was, of course, not my contribution, but of Applications Manager at
   Ford. It was properly marked and acknowledged, and crossposted with
   author's prior written authorisation of 3 May 1994 ! It seems all this
   has somewhat escaped to Tony's attention...

7. There is a netter who denies a posting where someone falsified the
   authorship. Tony is being publicly accused to be the offending person.
   Indeed, accents use, style and infantile idea are pointing toward Tony.
   No satisfactory explanation offered. Sorry, no names nor any further
   details.

---

So far quoted parts of the mentioned posting. After that, I stated that,
despite of all facts enumerated, despite of many concordances of these
facts, personally, I don't believe that Mr. Tony Pace would be the
offending person, this ultimate conviction being based exclusively on
denial of Mr. Tony Pace, and that therefore, there has to be a third
person.

In his reply, Mr. Tony Pace stated that (in clear text: Mr. Tony Pace;
with quotation sign at the beginning of the line: my texts that
Mr. Tony Pace has chosen to quote):

------

>5. Applications Manager at Ford continues to play the game and quotes
>   Tony as a third person. Tony does not contribute anymore under his

It was quite apparent that there was an impostor pretending,
I was interested to see the impostor reveal his identity, now it is quite
apparent, as Roman says 'continues to play the game and quote Tony
as a third person', that is quite suggestive of a motive, Roman.

>   own name for a longer period.

It was a long wait and see approach, but it was worth the wait Roman,
since it was you who provided the revelation of the impostor's identity:

>6. One Applications Manager's contribution to this list crossposted to
>   Slovak-L. Tony is gladly putting Applications' Manager allegations
>   into the mouth of the messenger, which in this case happened to be
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   my humble person... See Slovak-L, Tue, 3 May 1994, quoted back by Tony
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   (on Slovak-L, under his own name) on 6 May 1994:

    Yes, I'd mentioned Jelinek's work some months prior in another
discussion on Slovak-l, quite interesting that you'd follow-up with
an antecedent. One problem though, the reference which you provided
was a French language book if I recall correctly, though you also
noted (in the opening lines of this text) that I do not read French,
which happens to be true, yet you yourself exhibit French discourse
at some level of expertise, then you follow it up with your:

>   It was, of course, not my contribution, but of Applications Manager

[ ... deleted ...]

Very classy character assasination Roman, now we know what you're about!
Instead of discussing the issues on numerous occasions, just delete the
text, then substitute your own machiavelian machinations in lieu of the
discussion. You're desperate to discredit because you have no arguments
which would stand up in discourse. I would have never imagined that you
were capable of machiavelian machinations of such enormous proportions!
How incredibly devious of you to even consider such demeaning machinations,
and then to summarize them with your ever so-sweet renounciation:

>Looking again at the whole thing, there is a third possibility. You know,
>Tony, people often say me that I have too much faith in the goodwill of
>people. Yes, it has to be so, because I do not believe the Applications
>Manager at Ford Motor Co. is identical with your person. I amebasing my
>ultimate conviction on your statement that you "emphatically refute the
>allegation". Tony, I cannot admit you would lie... Thus, the explanation
>is that there has to be an another person at Ford Motor Company who
>contributed into a mailing list under the pseudonyme Apponyi, a person
>who shares the same quotation database, uses the same formulations, just
>acts in a somewhat more malicious way...

.Your third person machiavelian formulations?

>Now that we have established that the offending individual in no case can
>be identical with your person, I would like to express how sorry I am for
>accidentally haveing mixed up the two identities. I sincerely regret my
>injustified allegations and hereby present you my apologies for the
>misundestanding.

Apology acknowledged, Tony

------

The above was a quotation from the reply of Mr. Tony Pace (slightly
abridged as marked in the text).



In Geneva, at Rond-Point de Plainpalais, there is a tramway stop. To
animate the square, four bronze statues had been put on the pavement.
They are in living size, and in a very realistic finition. Once upon
time, a little absent-minded, I have collided with a gentleman on the
square. I said, pardon, Monsieur, excusez-moi, he said nothing. I look
at him, he is bronze. Aah, I said myself, first bemused, then simply
amused, I have to make more attention where I walk. I haven't find
necessary to stop there to withdraw my apologies, it wasn't a real,
thinking human being. I don't regret haveing apologized, and I don't
feel it was unnecessary: he might have been a real, thinking human
being and at first glance, he ideed was.

I am wondering how is it possible there are people for whom the reality
is not something that exists outside of us, that can be changed in some
cases, if a targeted effort is brought, but that cannot be changed (at
least, not as result of a concentrated effort) without understanding
the reality, without opening the eyes. Some time ago on this list, Mr.
Tony Pace has given himself to joys of public bashing of a netter who,
in his opinion, wrote in a too crude way about the reality, putting into
his mouth expression like "now that you made us look like monkeys",
labeling his contributions with adjectives like "smear campaign",
"journalist ducks", and other similar treasuries of thinking. The
dispute then went in a direction that 40% of population cannot be
extremists, and it has been concluded that it's the approximate
proportion of the population that's about to give their votes to
parties that can be considered as such. An external observer can wonder
how it is possible, that thinking, rationally behaving people will to
commit a collective suicide of the whole country. History showed many
times this is perfectly possible, because there are people who are
neither thinking nor rationally behaving, for whom thinking and all
rationality is a lone, abstract concept of intellectuals and other
treators of the Race, Nation, State, whatever. There is also an
example on this list that it is possible to commit a suicide and
yet to cry about "classy character assassination"...

I think Slovak-L is a precious source of information, because it allows
to observe such a behaviour in a microcosmos, and despite of elitist
character of the sample of contributors, there indeed is a low end of
the spectre. Is is extremely instructive to see a person (and many
persons) who is (are) able to construct a whole world of appearances,
beliefs, myths, and to be positively persuaded they live anchored into
reality... Such parallel reality is so wonderful: one can take it,
possess it, fold it, sqeeze it, ruminate it, and with every step, the
reality becomes more and more appealing, more and more "real". How many
times in the history of the humanity we saw ruins of so wonderful
realities? How many times only in this last century?

A second precious observation one can make if reading Slovak-L is to
learn about methods of reality embellishers, about their behaviour in
stationary situations, their conservativist character, their inability
of adaptation, fear of dynamics, their closed-mindness, and their
resistence to get in touch with the reality, the "true" one. In non-
stationary situations, especially when confronted to the "true" reality,
quick, shortcut reactions, reminding these of a pre-pubertal kid.

There also is much matter to assess what I am calling to be the wow-wow
syndrome. In the past epoch, Ministry of Truth used to organize Moments
of Hate. In a totalitarian regime, hate is an important element to
maintain the cohesion of absurdity. Practical exercice is so simple, an
enemy is designed and masses start making wow-wow in the designed
direction. Key element to understand the mechanism is to know to exploit
the natural fear of unknown, hidden in everyone, and to make the "enemy"
appear to be strange. A strange person is not "one of us", thus he
necessarily is an enemy. In the wow-wow exercice, there are good points
to be collected. Like in triathlon, fervor of hate is evaluated upon
three criterions: barking, howling, raging. Getting an outstanding
score opens doors to positions where the wow-wow triathlone becomes more
and more formal, like a mask, and more and more thinking is required.
But, there are people who cannot think and these will be happy to rage
forever, and don't ask for anything else than to be left in pace, after
all, why to change to something new and unknown? Assessing this phenomenon
allows one to undestand the orphan feelings of many people who haven't
learned anything else in their lives, who have given up thinking, leaving
it to Camrads from the Inner Party, and who welcome anybody who will let
them exercice the wow-wow. There is an important change, now they are
allowed to bark in direction they wish, yet to be praised for. They
believe that's democracy. They believe the beloved leader the only person
able to deliver the lost security. Example of Slovak-L as a microcosmos
shows that a totalitarian regime is not required to develop such a "way
of thinking"...

An another important feature is that in absence of thinking about issues,
personal interactions get an increased importance. Thus it is not so
important what has been said, as by whom it was said. Also, it is useful
to remark two prevalent forms of behaviour: 1. escape or 2. attack, to
resume, a confrontation leading to establishing a domination relation as
the only possible form of social interaction. If one is showing sings of
moderated and conciliatory attempts, this does not lead to examine the
facts, but to a conclusion he is weaker and has to be attacked.

Now that the key elements have been brought together, it's time to go to
the substance.

It is possible to deny the evidence, but the reality will not stop to
exist. If one's fighting for his right to see his own version of reality
pure and without any unnecessary perturbations, it is advised not to be
astonished if can't see the open door to exit, and comes back to give
a kick...

After being myself accused to be the impostor, I have chosen not to reply
immediately, but to get documented about the case in order to be able, if
necessary, to bring formal proofs of the contrary. It has been made
now. I am able to proof that the user identifier Applications Manager,
>, whose contributions used to be signed
under pseudonyme Apponyi, was a person using computer equipment of the
Ford Motor Company. There are elements allowing one to make even more
detailed conclusions, but I chose not to present them here right now.

Indeed, as Mr. Tony Pace correctly sais, he wrote about the book of
Yesahudi Jelinek some time ago, it was in October 1993. That the book
is in French, and that himself claims not to understand French hasn't
prevented him to bring quotation from the book. I haven't verified their
correctness, because I haven't read the book, but this is not the issue
today. The issue is the construction Mr. Tony Pace brought to justify
the accusation of imposture.

First, the facts:

1. There was a discussion about Slovak holocaust on Slovak-L, that spread
   also to an another list. Many illustrous contributors to Slovak-L felt
   uncomfortable with the development of the discussion.

2. Applications Manager, signing his texts as Apponyi, has just appeared
   on an another list with lengthy quotations regarding 19th century, and,
   of course, intervened in the dispute. He brought a lengthy article
   about a book written by a victim of the holocaust. That the text has
   been already published under name Tony Pace on Slovak-L was not
   known to me, and considering thousands of lines of stuff published
   published by Mr. Tony Pace and later by Applications Manager, it's
   normal that I forgot about it. I found the text to be interesting and
   worth of bringing to Slovak-L, because it presented a voice of a
   victim. I haven't verified myself the exactness of the text, as I
   trusted the unknown poster.

3. I wrote a private E-mail to request a forward authorization into
   Slovak-L. I don't do it often as to reveal existence and contents of
   private communications, but in this case, we are looking for the
   identity of the person whom the letter was addressed. Applications
   Manager replied me within a very short time and granted the forward
   authorization.

4. I found the matter interesting because it brought a different opinion
   into the discussion, and I brought also a couple of other references
   of other books from the same author. Mr. Tony Pace quoted the forward
   as coming from me, probably to increase the image of objectivity.
   I have not read any of these books until now.

5. Applications Manager stopped to contribute in the list when a sender
   falsification attempt brought many protest voices and Mr. Tony Pace has
   been accused to be the imposter. No satisfactory explanation offered.

Mr. Tony Pace accused me to be the person hidden under identity of
Applications Manager at Ford Motor Company, justifying his accusations
by deductions coming from text comparison. He seems to forget that unlike
persons, there are things that do not lie: message headers are facts,
the cruel, true reality that cannot be falsified. I have enough elements
to be able to prove that messages of the Applications Manager at the
Ford Motor Company indeed originated from the Ford Motor Company Internet
domain.

I would like to remark that this situation is similar to the one last
week, when Mr. Tony Pace wrote: I emphatically refute the allegation and
demand an apology! However, the similarity is only one-sided because he
wasn't able to bring any evidence showing he is not Applications Manager.
I can do that on behalf of my person. The question is whether Mr. Tony
Pace really wants me to do that. I do not request any action, all
is left on Mr. Tony Pace's decision within a reasonable delay. After,
I will take the initiative and decide about the followup. I am not in
hurry, especially considering the asymmetric nature of the risk in this
case and the fact there are certain measures that are irreversible.

I suggest to Mr. Tony Pace to think well before taking position, because
there will be no other chance offered. There are cases when instead
of the final cut, one is stepping back in the last moment, but as
experience shows, this is not necessarily leading to a quick solution
of the problem.

Roman Kanala

Disclaimer: speaking, of course, as a private person.
The only link to the University of Geneva is that the
account used to post these lines is owned by the
University.

Dictionaries are our friends:

rationalism: reliance on reason as the basis for establishment of religious
truth

--Greg

> I lived here long enough to have an idea, (about people's feelings
> about monarchy) anyway, why should your sources be any more
> trustworthy than mine? Eva Durant

May be because you keep telling us confused you are...  :-)

--Greg

Eva Durant writes:

>I had to admit I visited one such establishment lately
>in Manchester with nieces from Hungary who wuldn't go anywhere else, and
> I enjoyed it

Perhaps, your nieces from Hungary came to the conclusion that English food
leaves something to be desired and Pizza Huts and McDonalds are still better.
Eva

Andras Kornai writes:

>One may argue the opposite, namely that religion, in particular
>institutionalized religion, is poison.

Yes, indeed. If I recall properly, it was Marx who claimed that religion was
nothing but poison. (Exact quotation escapes me right now.) This
anti-religious stance of the socialist movement has remained a constant all
through the nineteenth century and later, and, unfortunately, this Marxist
tenet had very ugly consequences later in the Soviet Union and its
satellites. Therefore, I would not argue anything of the sort.

Further:

>This is partly
>because of the world-wide perception of these churches, first and formost
>the Roman Catholic church, as ossified, conservative, and stupid -- a
>sentiment well expressed by Sine1ad O'Connor (a pop singer and youth idol
>you probably never heard of) who took the opportunity in one of the
>prime-time TV shows (Letterman?) to display a picture of John Paul II and
>tear it up with the comment "This is the enemy".

How right you are, I have never heard of Sine1ad O'Connor! I am stricly and
militantly classical in my musical tastes and avoid pop singers and youth
idols with a vengeance. Admitting such a bias, I consider such behavior
tasteless.

Further to my question:

>>Does this mean, by the way, that you
would
>> be ready to dismantle the hundreds and hundreds of research institutes
which
>> are currently financed by the Hungarian government?

>The issue is almost moot: with budgets like in the past five years, the work
>of dismantling these institutes is effectively completed. What remains is
>either self-supporting (like computer science, applied physics) or
>low-budget (like history or philosophy).

If that is the case, then I don't understand the whole upheaval about
elections at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. From the article I read, it
looks as if the elections had a great deal to do with financial allocations
and approval of research topics. In any case, the fact is that although I
feel sorry for the people who may be losing their jobs if these institutes
are closed, I don't think that the state should maintain such organizations.
During the Rakosi period when the Academy got into the business of presiding
over research institutions in the humanities and social sciences, the move
was clearly political. Today the maintenance of such relationship would be
not only superfluous but would threaten the independence of historical/social
science research.

Eva Balogh

On Fri, 26 Aug 1994 15:10:26 +0100 Eva Durant said:
>
>I am totally confused. I thought if you were a rationalist, you
>had no reason to believe in a God?

--Understandable confusion if you haven't read Chesterton.  Look,
the world operates according to certain rules, e.g., the laws of
physics.  And yes, I know about "chaos" theory and don't see that
it changes the essential point.  And I have published a recent
article that argues that the social world is constructed by humans
according to values and that this has nothing to do with physical
laws.  Given, however, a world that is apprehendible by physics
and mathematics (Imi, where are you?), I find it difficult to believe
that it is simply an accident (and now I retreat into Russian mysticism
in the manner of Berdyaev) so that some being is responsible and life
has some purpose beyond the accidental.

 I am also curious, so far my conclu-
>sion is that the meaning of (human) existence is to get to know
>as much as possible about the world, pass on the knowledge and have
>a good time, also try to avoid other people having a bad time.
>Do I need a God for this?

--No, of course not.  This is the orthodox humanist position.  If I
may, I'd like to ask you a question.  I admit that it is a trick
question.  I wouldn't ask it of everyone, but I believe you to be
an intelligent, strong person of whom this can be asked.  Here it is:
What is the importance of death?  Is it real?  More later, but it
depends on your answer.  I should mention that I am drinking gin!
Philosophy goes better when one is drinking something!  Since you
live in the mother country, I don't imagine that you will be able
to answer, if you care to, until morning when I will be drinking
coffee!

Charles

Eva Durant misunderstood what I mean by "philosophically speaking" when she
writes:

>1. A "believer" very often does not have a philosophy atteched to beliefs.

Philosophers have tried to prove the existence of God as long as there have
been philosophers. They couldn't. But it is also impossible to prove that God
doesn't exists. Therefore, if you are not a believer the only intelligent
thing you can say about the existence of God that it is unknown and probably
unknowable. You can't with any certainty say that He does not exist. A
believer indeed "does not have a philosophy attached to beliefs" his belief
relies on faith. But if you have faith, you don't have to worry about
agnosticism or atheism or anything else.

Eva Durant continues:

>2. I think it is not a secular state's duty
>to teach religion. It is upto the parents to choose it's form - out-
>side school hours.

Again, Eva Durant argues about nothing. I didn't say that it is the "state's
duty to teach religion." As the matter of fact, I am a firm believer in the
separation of church and state, and I would have been very unhappy if the
former coalition government managed to include religion as one of the regular
subjects in state-run schools. As the matter of fact, I am even unhappy about
using the schools, after hours (as Eva Durant suggests in the next sentence)
as the place of instruction. I would have been much happier with a
Sunday-school system similar to the Western practice. But to return to
religious education: I think that parents who deprive their children some
familiarity with religion are doing a disservice to them.

Elsewhere Eva Durant wrote:

>Just for general info: When I lived in Hungary last (1983-87) most
> kids were attending religious education (after school) to my
> amazement...

I am amazed too because I read somewhere that the percentage is about 25
percent.

Eva Balogh

On Fri, 26 Aug 1994 09:46:32 -0700 > said:
>Dictionaries are our friends:
>
--So are snakes!

>rationalism: reliance on reason as the basis for establishment of religious
>truth
>
That may be a dictionary definition, but it isn't good theology.  One cannot
come to religious consciousness (to use a modern phrase) on the basis of
rationality alone.  Religion is a matter of conviction or belief, and there
is, frankly, the aura of myth and mystery about it.  Rationality will only
take one  to the point of thinking that there may be a God.  This is
skepticism.  One also needs the significant experience that the atheist
psychologist Maslow called a "peak experience."  Are these things valid
religious experiences?  That is a matter of faith, not rationality.
What have churches got to do with it?  They are communities of seekers,
not dogmatists--at least if they are worth fooling around with.  If I
were still working as a pastor, I would want a church filled with skeptics.

Charles

On Fri, 26 Aug 1994 17:47:17 EDT > said:
>Eva Durant writes:
>
>>I had to admit I visited one such establishment lately
>>in Manchester with nieces from Hungary who wuldn't go anywhere else, and
>> I enjoyed it
>
>Perhaps, your nieces from Hungary came to the conclusion that English food
>leaves something to be desired and Pizza Huts and McDonalds are still better.
>Eva

--Much as I respect your intellect, Dr. Baroch, I must leap in to defend
English food.  I was told that the best would be comparable to that of the
average school cafeteria, and I was prepared for the worst.  What I found
was delightful fish, good-flavored beef, and wonderful vegetables.  I
was also told that the reason that the English were such frequent explorers
was that they were looking for a good meal.  This too, is unfair.  There
are several good cuisines in Britain now, including the local fare.  They
don't boil the vegetables all day any more, but serve them cooked just
right.

Charles

On Fri, 26 Aug 1994 17:47:52 EDT > said:
>Andras Kornai writes:
>
>
>Yes, indeed. If I recall properly, it was Marx who claimed that religion was
>nothing but poison. (Exact quotation escapes me right now.)

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

>How right you are, I have never heard of Sine1ad O'Connor!

--That's not a great loss.  It might even be a blessing.

                         Admitting such a bias, I consider such behavior
>tasteless.

--Tasteless is a good word for it, I think.
>
             I don't think that the state should maintain such organizations.

--Ow!  The Hungarian Academy of science sponsored the conference that gave
me the opportunity to visit Hungary.  Surely they won't close it up and
turn it over to McDonald's or someone like that will they?

>During the Rakosi period when the Academy got into the business of presiding
>over research institutions in the humanities and social sciences, the move
>was clearly political. Today the maintenance of such relationship would be
>not only superfluous but would threaten the independence of historical/social
>science research.

--Then the Academy performs no useful function today?  Sorry to hear that.
Not only that, but it occupies a magnificent building.

Charles

George Antony writes:
>This is where Andras's catchy but fundamentally flippant parallel with army
>bordellos falls down: regular sexual intercourse is not usually considered a
>basic human right.
Is art and entertainment a basic human right? Remember I reacted to using
state funding of the arts and the USO as parallels here. Perhaps I could go
along with you and Paul Gelencse1r and accept that access to a priest is a
basic human right. But giving said priest one rank or another, what has this
got to do with your fundamental rights? There is another line of argument
here, "Ehess ihass o2lelhess alhass/A mindense1ggel me1rd magad" but I'll
leave this alone as it leads to secular humanism...

>I am really jealous of Andras: the RFE devotes no resources to
>unmask my posts to this mailing list.
And my name even made it into a thread title -- this is ever so gratifying.
There is no specific newsgroup devoted to me yet, but can alt.kornai.fan and
alt.kornai.die be far away? And if all goes well, in a few years I get my
own proper religion, like James Parry. Is Kibology as good as Christianity?
Read more of the alt.religion groups and find out for yourself.

>would suggest that Andras Kornai (Dr, BTW, not Mr) is economically left-wing.
Thanks but I don't use the title (though I have it).  MaNcs readers are
not economically left-wing as a group (and neither am I) so "guilt" by
association is OK.

Greg Grose, as usual, gets to the heart of the matter:
>But of course you have nothing but respect for those few score ordinary
>people who choose to attend these churches, right?
My respect or lack thereof will not be decided on the basis of their
religion. Some of my best friends are devout Catholics:-) 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. What I said was that
this perception, particularly strong among the young, is world-wide (as
opposed to the collaboration business which is restricted to Eastern
Europe), and I used a Western youth idol to make this point. Do I think John
Paul II is the enemy?  No I don't think so. Do I understand the frustration
of a young Irishwoman with the Catholic church? Yes, I think so.

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

>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.

>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, I said this perception is
world-wide. To some extent I actually share this perception, but we haven't
in any way discussed to what extent. Nor have we discussed how general is
this perception. Paul asserts it is a "scattered" minority view and I think
it's much more than that, but this is largely irrelevant to the issue under
discussion. Even if these churches were the most progressive, nimble, and
intelligent organizations all around, and even if they were near-universally
perceived as such, I would still want to separate them from state-run things
maximally.

Turning to Paul Gelencse1r's postings:
>What Andra1s forgets  is that the main objection to the Catholic
>Church is it's conservative (unenlightened? ;-) ) position on social
>issues. ie abortion, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, etc.  Funny how
I don't care who objects to which piece of Catholic opinion, or whether
such objections are reasonable or heretical. I just want separation of
Church and State, any church, any state.

>No institution is comprised of only perfect people, but that is not a reason
>to condemn it.
I haven't condemned the church (whichever church). 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. Whether this church or some other promotes eternal truths and a
universal reference is debatable, and there is quite a range of opinion out
there, as inspecting the bumper stickers on a random sample of cars will
already reveal. You are free to vote for fundamentalist politicians who push
the Catholic viewpoint, and I am free to vote for politicians who resist
this push.

This whole debate started with E1va's being surprised that the MSZP/SZDSZ is
not more yielding to the established churches, and arguing this is a
political mistake. I argued that it was not a mistake, that in fact this
expresses the wishes of their voters quite correctly. I have been attacked
for this both by you and by Norb, who writes

>    You have no basis for assuming that a majority of Hungarians are either
>atheists or "don't take the established churches to be appropriate
>representatives of their religious sensibilities," but even if you do, you
>cannot speak for them.  You seem to preach a strange sort of liberalism...
Just to set the record clear, I am speaking strictly for myself, and the
parenthetical remark referred back to an earlier debate where I also used my
own views as an exemplification of the views of others. Whether my exposure
to Hungarians in Hungary is appropriate basis to claim that the majority are
either atheist or have various problems with the established churces is
again debatable, but clearly the way to settle the real issue is not by
minute examination of my feelings and experiences but by looking at various
polls and sociological surveys. I'll try to get some material both on this
and on previous Church-State (communist state, that is) collaboration.

Yet another issue is whether those who supported MSZP or SZDSZ did so out of
anti-religious convictions: I don't think that is the case, and I don't even
think the issue was greatly debated during the campaign (as a matter of fact
there was very little american-style public debate about anything).  So the
real question is: was this a popular move, an unpopular one, or one that
generated little interest altogether? I think it is in the last category: it
was neither deeply popular nor deeply unpopular, though obviously there were
people such as myself who were quite delighted, and other people who were
quite upset. Since those who are now upset would have never voted for a
leftist or a liberal party, while those who are delighted are unlikely to
come from the C-N camp, I concluded that MSZP/SZDSZ did the politically
correct (vote-winning) thing. To prove me wrong, all you need to do is to
describe the groundswell of support army chaplains are getting from those
most interested, namely the soldiers.  Since they *are* also voters, all
they have to do is to complain to their representatives in Parliament and
raise a fuss in general. Hungary is very open that way (any opinion can be
expressed on any matter) and there are plenty of opposition politicians who
would be delighted to exploit the issue.

> Yes, but the minority in your view, and therefore, 'sorry, but we can't
> help you'.
Well what do you want? Save the immortal souls of these soldiers (a noble
goal, but one perhaps better advanced by refusing to take life. i.e.
conscientious objection to draft, than by fully integrating Church into the
rank structure of the Army) or high military ranks for army chaplains? If
you want to save their souls, perhaps you should be working together with
peace groups (most of which are Christian) *against* the Army. If you want
to work *for* the Army please notice that it is an instrument of the State,
and as such should be under the control of the duly elected political
leaders, and you take your orders from them. If you don't like this, stay
out of the Army, and support organizations that support your moral right
to do so.

>Religion is a fundamental attribute of Hungarian society.
No it's not, thank God. Hungarian society is mostly secular, and I hope it
will stay that way. Certainly the people can vote for a more religious
orientation, there are enough parties espousing that.  I remember that the
MDF's campaign posters about "Jo2jjo2n el a Te orsza1god" [Thy Kingdom Come]
were resented by almost everybody in 1990 (though for different reasons by
those were religiously inclined and those who weren't), and if you think
it's a winning ticket, hey, go for it. But the election results make it
clear that the majority does not find C-N ideology attractive enough to
forget about economic issues. The mere fact that elections are decided on
economic issues (agreed to by all participants, except Norb's strawman)
shows that the society is fundamentally secular.  If religion was a
fundamental attribute, people would vote that way, don't you think?

>To religous folks, religion IS more important than their social habits.
This obviously depends on the strength of your religious convictions. Some
folks feel strongly enough about this to go to prison rather be part of an
institution devoted to the taking of life. Other folks think that the higher
your rank in this institution the better.

>If you cannot understand that, you truly do need to become more sensitive
>to the points of view of others, Andra1s.
Oh I understand very well that this is how they think. They also try to
organize themselves politically (even by hijacking the republican party)
to get what they want. It is their right to do so, and it is my right to
oppose it. As long as there *is* a secular society in which such matters
are decided at the ballot box and not by decree of the Ayatollah I'm happy.

Andra1s Kornai

PS. Since I have my own thread I might as well comment on other things:
 (Fred Ha1mori) posted a bunch of Sumer-Magyar stuff.
According to the Church of Linguistics (of which I am a middle-ranked
priest, with the appropriate degrees and titles) this is bad, unorthodox,
positively heretical stuff. For a thorough discussion of the "scientific"
methods of sumer-magyarology in general and Ida Bobula in particular, see
Ge1za Komoro1czy: Sumer e1s magyar. Magveto3 (Gyorsulo1 Ido3) 1977.