In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Wed, 9 Nov 1994, Alan Yasutovich wrote:

> In alt.child-support you write:
Alan,
	First, I would like to apologize to you personally for 
publicizing your reply.  I forgot that this was not a reply to a mailing 
list item.  (I'm still learning the intracacies of this mailer).  It was 
very rude.

> >On Tue, 8 Nov 1994, Alan Yasutovich wrote:
> >> In alt.child-support you write:
> >> >On 4 Nov 1994, Purity 1 wrote:
> >> >> In article <399j0h$p6q@maple.enet.net>, artbusby@enet.net (Arthur L. 
> >> >> Busby Jr.) writes:
> >> >> > Perhaps if discipline were reintroduced into society
> >> >> >then we wouldnt have the gang problems we do today, and why ..... BECAUSE
> >> >> >SUDDENLY THEIR IS A CONSEQUENCE TO OUR ACTIONS >>>

Here is where I agree with you.  Purity is more the innocent victim of an 
evil world over which she has no contol.  I am someone who recognizes my 
own responsibility for my actions, and recognizes that others will face 
the consequences of their actions whether they choose to be responsible 
for them or not.  Not everyone is aware that there is a difference 
between the spiritual law of cause and effect or all actions have 
consequences, and the spiritual practice of being responsible for both 
the actions and the consequenses.

> >> >If you are really serious about wanting to stop the gangs, advocate a 12 
> >> >month school year.  Advocate 8 hour school days.  Gangs are the direct 
> >> >result of unstructured time, unrealistic expectations, and minimal 
> >> >supervision, often by pedophiles and abusive personalities.
> >> 
> >> 	I agree.  Last week in church the pastor was preaching.  He
> >> 	rattled off a bunch of typical things like sex and drugs that
> >> 	people toute as big teen problems.  Turns out that present
> >> 	day psychologists claim that "bordom" is the biggest problem
> >> 	teens have today.

Psychologists have about as many theories as to why teens are what they 
are as there are teen councillors and tharapists.

There are many good family programs,  I have been active in 
several, including the Mormons, Babtists, Presbyterian, Methodists, and 
Catholics.  I've personally been sprinkled, dipped, and lit (holy 
spirit), but I work in a ministry where 80% of the people I work with 
have been so badly abused by certain individual members of organized 
religion, that I find it hard to simply say "Send the gangs to church and 
the problem will be gone".

Each of the seven deadly sins, pride, vanity, greed, envy, gluttony, 
lust, and sloth, are basic instincts which have become so important that 
they replace God, as the principle guiding force.  What has come to light 
in the treatment of drug addicts and alcoholics is that one of those 
seven instincts lumped into five groups- self-esteem, ambition, security, 
personal relations, sex/love relations is actually not present or 
allowed.  For myself, the missing instinct was sex.  For many, the 
missing instinct is self esteem, or ambition.

A drug addict becomes a drug addict when they discover that a drug 
(including alcohol, prescriptions, or street drugs) can "fill" the void 
left by the unsatisfied "hunger".  Imagine that someone could not eat, 
they would be punished if they even tried.  No this person, suffering 
from acute hunger, is given a drug that completely alleviates the 
sensation of hunger.  Since he has not eaten, there is still hunger.  As 
the drug wears off, and the hunger is still not satisfied, the hunger 
returns even more intensely.  Our addict now must use the drug again.  
Eventually, the addict will die of hunger because he would rather numb 
the pain of hunger with a drug, than deal with the shame and guilt of 
eating food.

For some, God, spirituality, and pique spiritual experiences can be like 
a drug.  Even though they are literally starving for love/sex/intimace, 
or self esteem, or the pursuit of a worthy goal, or to be acknowledged 
for an accomplishement, or just to have 3 friends they can trust, doesn't 
hurt as badly when they see the Son of God nailed to a cross.

The paradox is that it is the spiritual principles taught by Jesus Christ 
that can actually make the difference in their recovery.  When they can 
admit that they are completely powerless, turn everything (including that 
forbidden instinct) over to God in the belief that all of those needs 
will be met in an appropriate manner, and examine and confess their own 
selfishness and stop seeing others as being evil, then they begin making 
amends (restitution and pennance) to those they may have resented for 
decades, and seek to serve others generously and LET God provide for 
their needs (including the forbidden fruit), that they can experience 
permanent and total recovery.

Where the program breaks down, whether it be the Christian Church, or 
Alcoholics Anonymous, is when the forbidden fruit is kept in place.  For 
example, a member of AA may be told "No sex for a year", then when he has 
his year, he now anticipates love, romance, intimacy, and sex, possibily 
within the context of marriage, and is told not to get involved with 
newcomers.  Since there are very few women with more than a year in 
recovery, they are often coupled before the year is up.  The net result 
is that the thwarted instinct is kept in place. 

The same is true for the man who has never had permission to have
ambitions and is told to quit his job an collect disability because that
is the only way his treatment center bill will be paid.  Then there is 
the woman who is told to stay with her husband -- even though he has 
already stabbed her twice while he was drunk.  I could go through the 
seven instincts and show you examples of how treating the natural 
instinct as a sin could be more harmful than appropriately handling the 
situation.

Unfortunately training in the Christian Church varies widely from the 
Jesuit who is eternally in training, to the A of G preacher who can 
simply preach to the congregation such that they give generously.

The ability to distinguish one's own "forbidden fruit" is important.  
Saint Paul, plagued by constant requests for guidence in the matter of 
marriage and sexuality prefaced his reccomendations with "This is my 
personal opinion, not God talking".  The two obsenities given as from God 
were men raping men (the process for kosher rape of a woman is in 
Leviticus 18), and sex with animals.  Hebrew and Yiddush have about 20 
different words for different types of sexual relationships.  The King 
James bible translates all of them to "lie with".  Hebrew has over 30 
distinctions of professional woman (yenta/matchmaker, marriage 
councillor, parental coach...) which are all translated to "prostitute".  
This had as much to do with justifying the Inquisitional process 
(torture, confession, burning at the stake of Midwives, Tharapists, or 
women who simply no longer satisfied their husbands), as it had to do 
with any spiritual principles.

> >Given the choice between the "wholesome" christian lifestyle, and the 
> >gang willingness to provide a structure for satisfaction of the most 
> >basic human post-puberty instincts, it is little wonder that the churches 
> >are empty relative to the streets which are literally packed with gangs. 

> >> 	And our intensive teen programs at the church are aimes at not
> >> 	giving the devil "idle hands" to use as his workshop.
> 
> >What are the primary principles?  Inquisition with simple garden tools?
> >Queer Bashing 101?  How about a bit of incest with the Scout Master?  
> >Lets not forget the weekly session of shame and guilt.

I admit, I reacted a bit intensely.  I have experienced most of the 
practices listed above personally.  I really didn't respond well to the 
electrified stool (I started fibrolating) at the Campus Life crusade.

I included the background below to simply give you a context for such an 
intense reaction.  I am amazed at how many people have tried to justify 
the acts below.  I have yet to meet a religous leader willing to be 
responsible for the consequences of these abuses.  Remember the opening 
them of this epistle is being responsible for the consequences of one's 
actions.  Leaders are responsible for the actions he represents.  If any 
Southern Babtist preacher would simply be responsible for the 
consequences of the one who took on "the power of God" to take away every 
friend I had at the time, (I was ex-communicated and declared anathama 
when I pointed out that his "Model Members" routinely tortured and abused 
the mentally retarded - I then quoted "What you have done to the least of 
my brothren, you have done to me".  No Fundamentalist Christian was 
allowed to speak to me, lest I poison their minds.  At one point, ten 
"Christians" whipped me with wet towels until the welts started 
bleeding.  They didn't even stop at 49 lashes.  It was more like 200.
 
> >I have no idea what your youth program is like.  I have seen such tactics 
> >used in a variety of "teen programs" including Campus Life, Teen 
> >Challenge, and even BSA.  I lost two cousins who felt that they would go 
> >to hell for their perverted thoughts.  One was 12 years old and couldn't 
> >yet control his natural reactions to pretty women his age.  The other was 
> >having homosexual fantasies (which he never acted on).  Take a visit to 
> >the local psychiatric ward, just start humming a church hymn.  Half the 
> >patients know the song and will sing along. The other half are reacting 
> >to Christian Horrors of their past.  I first got drunk on a youth 
> >retreat.  I was sexually assaulted in a church santuary, and was tortured 
> >because I was PERCIEVED as being gay.  Eventually I found protection from 
> >Christian fundamentalist abuse in the gay community.  They accepted my 
> >heterosexuality, which was more than I could say for the christians.

> >Most of these perceptions came from trying to live consistant with the 
> >teachings of Christ.  Unfortunately, when I did't letch obviously as the 
> >other boys did, they decided I was gay.  When I was still a virgin until 
> >after my 21st birthday, I was obviously gay.  Christ had many things to 
> >say about the Pharasees.  Today I see why.

Ironic actually.  Several of these good Christian boys were "dead beat 
dads" by the time they were 20.  I was a virgin until I was 21.  I wasn't 
persecuted because I complimented some guy on his ass.  I was persecuted 
because I DIDN'T declare that I wanted to "f**k that slut".  Most of 
these guys had their first sexual experience by the time they were 16, 
with a prostitute who threw them out of the room as soon as they had 
satisfied themselves.  Their fathers had taken them.  The most intimate 
moment of their lives was turned into a cheap game to "prove their manhood".

> >Eventually, I became an alcoholic and recovered.  For the past 14 years, 
> >I've been helping young alcholics and drug addicts get off the street.  I 
> >listen as they share carefully written chronicles of their lives (called 
> >inventories) and are more reluctant to share their desire for relatively 
> >harmless sexual acts than they are to share about who they've killed.

> >I've heard about 5000 stories, maybe more, in 8 cities.  City kids, 
> >country kids, rich kids, poor kids.  People from the shelters of Denver 
> >Colorado's 5 points, to people from the campus of Princeton University.  
> >Some of them identify themselves in their pre-drinking days as recovering 
> >christians, recovering catholics, or recovering fundamentalists.
 
> >I recieved this reply in my personal Inbox.  I apologise for the direct 
> >bluntness.  If I could stop 100 kids from being prepared for the candy 
> >man by the preacher man, it would be worth it.

> >	Rex Ballard

> 	1)  It's about time you learned some simple net-etiquette.
> 	Normally private email is not a license to make the contents
> 	public.  It's rude.  And your ignorance completely negates
> 	anything you just said.

Again, I apologize profusely.  I normally do not do that.  Now I know 
that when PINE offers to let me respond back to the newsgroup, that I 
want to say NO when I am responding to E-Mail.  I hope you will forgive a 
very insensitive act of stupidity.

> 	2) The analogy was just that.  And had you read what I said,
> 	you would learn that the focus of the example was what
> 	SECULAR psychologists were saying about teens biggest problem.
> 	Not the pastor, the Bible, God, me, or anything like that.
> 	The context of the pastor and the sermon was just the context
> 	of where and why it was heard. No religious content was implied
> 	or meant.

Secular psychologists have an entire spectrum of opinions.  Your preacher 
chose to focus exclusively on the "boredom" theory.  I originally 
proposed that adding year round supervised structure would make a 
difference.  I realize that many Christian schools offer this, or similar 
capability.  For many dislocated families, the church provides an 
effective substitute for the extended and tribal family.  When the church 
is providing a nurturing structured environment, such as the family 
programs offered by the Lutheran, A of G, Southern Babtist, and Mormon 
churches, the children are rarely recuited into gangs.

In the inner cities, the gangs infiltrate the church.  It isn't unusual 
to see a young man saying amen in the church, and then lighting a 
competing crack dealer in a garbage can soaked with gasoline.  For one 
hour a week, almost anyone, even a GodFather can act like a saint.

One of the risks of groups like "Focus on the Family" is that it promotes 
a structure for economic discrimination.  The Republican Party leader 
just announced that they would be advocating voucher systems and target 
schools within 6 months now that the Republicans controlled "the hill".
This is an attempt at constitutionally circumventing attempts at 
integration, including forced busing, fair housing laws, and EEOC 
provisions.  The problem is that if the "poor", especially single parent 
families can't afford to suppliment their "voucher", the result will be a 
generation in 2010 consisting of 95% teen gang members, and 5% 
church-school and home-school educated elitists.  The "family values" 
agenda was first used in 1920, by the Klu Klux Klan, to justify 
segregation and the killing of Colored WW1 vets who had learned to 
appreciate white women in France.  The "focus on the family" attempted to 
depict "colored men" as irresponsible bums who had not been given the 
discipline of a good christian family.  It worked, Interacial marriages 
were prevented until the late 1960's.

Today, the target is more economic that racist.  The agenda is to keep 
the poor families from "corrupting" our "wholesome Christian children".
I used to debate regularly with a "pro-family" advocate, who eventually 
went on television as the Grand Wazier of the Klu Klux Klan.

> 	3) From the disfunctional tone and content of your reply,
> 	I'd put your entire conversation into the same disfuncional
> 	(/dev/null) mode as I see Puritie's rantings.

I don't routinely post to that group.  I was trying to give a background 
of why I would react so intensely.  I also wanted to provide the 
acknowledged basis of a rather biased reaction.  I your rather brief 
posting, it appeared that you could solve the entire gang problem by 
putting them in your youth corps/program.  Rather than pointing out other 
examples of such attempts, including the Scouts of America, Hitler Youth 
Corps, and Youth Programs of the Soviet Union, Communist China, Israel, 
Islamic Jihaads, and even Viet-Nam (the most deadly killers in Vietnam 
were women under 14, and boys under 12).

> 	Funny how you oppose her as well.
Purity occurs as one of those "Innocent Victims of Cruel, Evil, Men".  
Maybe the poor are innocent victims of a culture which offers them not 
even the illusion of success through responsibility.  Maybe there is some 
truth to the belief that there is no way out of the ghetto but in a pine 
box.  Maybe the streets of the South Bronx, Harlem, Trenton, Chicago, 
Detroit, and Watts are immune to the possibility of possibility.  If that 
is so, we will soon see the poor taking to the suburbs, uzies and AK-47s 
in hand, looting and raping the middle class, when they rebel and try to 
stop the government from trying to take 70% of their income and give it 
to 70% of the population.

Myself.  I'm one of those who left the comforts of the Upper Middle Class 
to learn, first hand what it was to be in the streets of the inner city.  
Even then, I lived in relative comfort and security.  I found myself 
drawn by my "forbidden fruit" (Sex) into the world of Alcoholism and Drug 
Abuse, and even some "Gang" affiliations.  I soon found myself in an 
environment where everything I knew was useless, including my degree from 
a private collage, religious leadership experience, and even a managerial 
career.  I quickly found recovery in A.A. and N.A., but often found 
myself in conflict with Married, Retired couples telling me I shouldn't 
have sex, shouldn't worry about my career, or even getting a job.  They 
were collecting social security and pensions, they could say that.  It 
was when an ex gay-hustler and needle-freak told me to shut up get 
honest, and fire the boogie man God before he killed me, that I actually 
began to recover.  

I got married and learned such simple practices as going to sleep before
midnight, waking up before noon, and providing as much service as I could
for $5/hour in the knowledge that eventually, if I was doing what I love
to do, I would be paid more.  I did eventually reach a pay rate of over
$2000/week.  I eventually even had two kids.  We joined the church for 
their family program.  They told me that I didn't need A.A. anymore.  I 
don't need A.A. that much, but I do need to give back what was given to 
me so freely and generously.  They wanted 10% of my income.  Leslie 
stopped having sex with me for over 4 years,  I asked the church for 
guidence and councilling.  I was told I rolled the dice and got "snake 
eyes".  They did let me (and Leslie) know what the penalties of getting 
divorced would be (1/2 assets, 2/3 child support and alimony), in other 
words, I could forget about having sex -- with anyone.  The involuntary 
celebacy lasted 7 years, punctuated by 2 sessions/year "just so you will 
remember what your not getting" at random occaisions.

My wife decided she could "settle"  for $1000/month (I was making
$3000/month at the time) in Child Support, and married a man who collected
disability.  With her workman's comp (he taught her to play the system
too), my child support, and his disability, along with pay off the books,
they were making $2500/month after taxes.  Meanwhile, my new after
tax/support income had gone from $2000/month to about $700/month.  About 2
years after the decree, she admitted that the marriage was based on fraud,
blackmail, and extortion, but I couldn't do anything about it (Colorado is
a No-Fault State). 

> 	Please learn to read. (not read-in)
I did read.  You were quite clear about your agenda and your view of a 
solution.  I have raised my concerns.  It would have been interesting to 
have this discussion on a public forum.  It might make a difference for a 
lot of people.

> 	And you don't have to apologise for your bluntness.
Actually, there was a lot of Knee-Jerk reaction.  I was quite abrupt, 
accusatory, and what you call "disfunctional".  Perhaps as we begin to 
discover more about each other's world, we may see that we actually have 
some very common goals and objectives.

> 	Just your ignorance of publicizing personal mail.
This was very stupid of me.  When I post to a mailing list, or someone 
posts a reply to an article I wrote, their mailer "CC"s a copy to me.  I 
can usually reply to riots I've caused :-), by replying via my personal 
mailbox.  The PINE Newsreader interface does the same thing.  When PINE 
asked me if I wanted to include the Newsgroups, I thought that was 
because you had sent this as a "CC:" posting.  I very much apologize.
 
	Rex Ballard


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Fri Nov 11 23:53:50 1994
Status: O
X-Status: 
Newsgroups: alt.child-support