In article
>, "Peter
A. Soltesz" > writes:

>Well Marina all I will say to you is what I said to Aniko
>Both of your minds are in the gutter!
>Shame on YOU!

Ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!
You are so full of yourself! Believe me, your opinion does not rate
anything.....
nem irjak a Wall Street-en......

In article
>, "Peter
A. Soltesz" > writes:

>On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Marina E. Pflieger wrote:
>SNIP>>>>>>
>> And have no fun at all?
>
>I guess your polluted mind has never heard of CLEAN FUN?????
>Peter>
To the contrary!  But - I wonder about your mind,  - it is corroding
day by day.

With deep-felt sympathy,
mep

In article >,  (George
Szaszvari) writes:

>BTW Saddam is far from *stupid*, in the sense that he fully well
>understands the game that is being played between himself and the
>western military-industrial complex that deliberately keeps him in
>power in Baghdad...especially since the demise of the Evil Empire of
>the USSR.

I'm willing to grant that Saddam is smarter than most of the members of
the Bush administration and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including Colin
Powell. The Gulf War shows up the flaws among Powell's generation of
military strategists. Stung by Vietnam, they now only want conflicts that
are "doable." Yet this policy seems to lead us repeatedly into situations
where we are doing nothing more than a more elaborate version of
re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. What's really cynical is that
Powell and Schwartzkopf both have criticized the Clinton administration
recently for zapping Saddam with cruise missiles when both of them, Powell
especially, are directly culpable for Saddam still being in power and
still being a threat to stability in the region. While I respect Powell
for his personal integrity, I'd never vote for him for President. That's
because of his performance in the Gulf War. He shows a distressing
inability to extrapolate beyond the immediate situation.

When Norman Schwarzkopf made a public criticism of the
>decision not to take Baghdad when the Allies could have just walked
>in and installed a friendly and sane government of Iraqi exiles, he
>was told to shut up...and did.

And has turned into a reliable mouthpiece for those responsible for
throwing away any positive results from the Gulf War. Two months after the
war ended, I spent some time in a local U.S. Army Reserve Center chatting
with the colonel who commanded a supply company for an armored unit during
the ground war. This guy was a reserve officer who is a college professor
in civilian life. He spoke angrily and at length about how the war had
been botched by ending the ground phase after just a few days. On the
final day of combat, his company was re-supplying tanks in the front line
north of the Kuwaiti border when the cease fire went into effect. He said
the Republican Guards units immediately in front of them retreated, their
crews laughing and taunting the American troops as they did. "We'll have
to do it all over again in five or six years because we didn't finish the
job," he told me. I think he was right.

The Hungarian aspect of this whole issue? Perhaps it can serve as a
precautionary warning -- even the best and the brightest can learn the
wrong lessons from national history. And if Hungary ever decides to
participate in U.N. peace-keeping missions, much less sign on as a member
of NATO, it ought to constantly re-assess the goals of its participation
and whether they are being met. (There, Hugh, how's that?)
Sam Stowe



"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, of course, it's too dark to read."
-- Groucho Marx

>At 09:58 AM 10/12/96 -0700, Louis Elteto  wrote:
>>>At 03:20 PM 10/11/96 -0400, Peter Soltesz wrote:
>
>>Is Peter Soltesz "exactly one of those men" who do these things? Has he,
>>ergo, as normal for  such men, left his wife and children behind?  Or is it
>>that men in general leave wives and children, pay no support, and rarely
>>take care of their children? - If you mean the former, you are doing
>>Soltesz an injustice; if the latter, your ad genus argument includes me,
>>and I should resent it.
>
>This argument can only be ad genus, since only men can leave their wives and
>children, etc. Therefore, I suggest that only those should resent it (or
>rather feel ashamed) who did those things.
>
>Gabor D. Farkas

Why, then, aim at the whole genus?

Louis Elteto

This info is undoubtedly published somewhere on a Magyar site/posting,
but I'm mentioning it just in case some readers don't know about it.
Some radio programmes are currently being aired by the BBC to celebrate
the 40th anniversary of the 1956 revolution. E.g., BBC Radio 4 will
transmit on various wavelengths (e.g., long wave at 198 KHz, 1515m, for
non-British zones) *Reading Aloud* (The Undefeated by George Paloczi-
Horvath. The remarkable story of an ex-communist in modern Hungary) at
7.30pm on Sunday 13 October and *Where is 1956?* at 7.45pm on Wednesday
16 October. Check out the BBC web site (which has programme listings) for
more details. (NB: These transmission times are one hour later than GMT.)

--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy ** Commodore=64...ICPUG ** NW London CC

On Sat, 12 Oct 1996, Eva S. Balogh wrote:

> At 03:20 PM 10/11/96 -0400, Peter Soltesz wrote:
> >Mark:
> >1- Abortion used to be illegal once.
> >2- No the mother's life is NOT more important than the baby's.
> >3- If the REAL choice is between the mother or baby dying the answer
> >would be obvious.
>
>         Etc. etc. etc. It has always amazed me that most of the spokesmen
> for the pro-life cause are MEN. Exactly those men who normally leave their
> wives and children behind; those who don't pay child support;

and those who
> find it easy to father a child but rarely take care of them. The poor woman
> is left holding the bag. I would like to see these brave men who speak about
> the mother's life being more or less important than the baby's get pregnant,
> carry that baby for nine months and then give birth. That would be the day!
>
>         Eva Balogh
>
<<<<<<
a) I am not a spokesman, I am expressing my personal opinion.
b) I would assume that most fathers do not leave their wifes/children behind
as you imply.
c) It exactly your last point why premarital sex is partuailly the cause
of some problems. You do know that that it takes two to tango!
d) The basic issue -- do not use abortion as birth control!
Peter

Someone on this list raised the possibility that the Hungarian propensity to
commit suicide might in some way be connected to low self-esteem and a
feeling of helplessness in the midst of adverse historical events.  Reading
recent (and earlier) postings penned by Eva Balogh, I suddenly realized that
in her person we may have the incarnation of the self-loathing and perceived
inferiority that some attribute to the Hungarian psyche.  Eva rarely misses a
chance to find fault with and denigrate the national character, historical
figures, most anythig ever accomplished by Hungary or Hungarians.  Her
attitude may actually harm her credibility by raising the question in the
reader: "How can I take seriously anything written by a member of such a
'stupid, backward, cowardly, racist' etc. (Eva's oft-used adjectives) tribe?"

Is there a psychologist out there who could comment on this?

Ferenc

On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, Marina E. Pflieger wrote:
> "underwhelmed". But, do believe me, at one time this had a "Hungarian
> content". After delicate deliberations many a group member deliberately
> tried to help a delirious Hungarian out of his delirium. All we got in
> return was a deluge of more "demagoguery". The man is beyon help,
> so we were thinking about referring his case to the good Doctor.
> Regards,
> Marina
<<<<<<< Thanks to DR. Marina. Perhaps you all forgot that Hunagry also
has one of the highest abortion rates in the world, we shure seem to get
it all, highest suiced, highes drunkards...perhasp there is a link
afterall?>

On Sat, 12 Oct 1996, Mpflerr wrote:
<snip>
> nem irjak a Wall Street-en......
>
Like if that was really important to me?

Does anyone out there knwo of any relationships between the Hungarians
and the Great Britain???
Peter Soltesz

In a message dated 96-10-13 09:19:17 EDT,  (Peter A.
Soltesz) writes:
<snip>
<< <<<<<<< Thanks to DR. Marina. Perhaps you all forgot that Hunagry also
 has one of the highest abortion rates in the world, we shure seem to get
 it all, highest suiced, highes drunkards...perhasp there is a link
 afterall?> >>
Peter,
it is interesting how in your eagerness to be in the forefront of every
conversation
you take my repply to Charles Vamossy and interject it in the abortion and
suicide issue. I was writing to CV to let him know, that my conversation with
Aniko was Hungary related in a sense, we were discussing your need for
medical attention.

Hungary always had a high suicide rate. As far as alcoholizm is concerned,
it has been  a problem in all communist countrys. But, it is a problem in
the US as well. As with most things, EDUCATION is the answer.

Abortion, - it should be a womans right to choose! It is not used for birth
control! The procedure is painful, it is surgery. Who the hell would want to
use this method of birth control. Get a life! Every person has to decide that
on their own - so stay out of it! I would like to know if you would be so
righteous if god forbid something happened to your daughter!

MEP

In a message dated 96-10-13 09:29:23 EDT,  (Peter A.
Soltesz) writes:

<< On Sat, 12 Oct 1996, Mpflerr wrote:
 <snip>
 > nem irjak a Wall Street-en......
 >
 Like if that was really important to me? >>


Duh! This was just a "figure of speach"

On Sat, 12 Oct 1996, Aniko Dunford wrote:

<Snippety>

> Some other aspects pro-life groups seem to neglect to recognize, is that
> clinically performed abortions are actually saving lives.  It has been
> fairly well documented, that countless deaths have been caused by attempts
> at self aborting.
<<<<<<<< You are correct and in those cercumstances it may be acceptable!

> In a posting, Peter preaches of adoption as an option.  He is right, in that
> many people welcome the opportunity of being able to adopt.  Right down to
> the point, when it is discovered that the baby they have adopted has some
> genetic disorders, or serious medical problems.
<<<<< Well this is an interesting one for sure. The only potential
advantage of "making" a baby vs. adopting is that one generally knows
more about the parentage and can have some ideas of how the babay will
turn out. Nevertheless, I heard and seen "well mated" parents have
children that met some of oyur examples. This does not mean that one
should not
adopt.
>
> Then of course, pro-lifers neglect also to give consideration to cases,
> (even though they claim to) where conception occurred through rape; incest;
> child abuse; etc etc etc.  None of which would remotely qualify for
> consenting to a roll in the hay as they say.  Regardless of conception, in
> any form of unwanted pregnancy, I can only imagine, the emotional anxiety
> these women must go through prior to reaching a decision - and the trauma
> after the fact - their available options each carry consequences that I for
> one, would not like to have to live with.  And I am convinced that the last
> thing they need at such a time, is anyone enforcing their own ideals onto
> them.  Especially those, who have and will continue to demonstrate zero
> regard for these womens lives.
<<<<<<<< Well perhaps by most definitions I am a pro lifer. Yet I am
still struggling with things related to rape, et al. I realize the
consequences, etc. ....I would tend to favor some approval, yet it is
stil a human life. I have yet to be convinced either way on this sub-topic.

> I strongly disagree, that abortion should be used as a means of birth
> control.  But I strongly agree, that women should have a choice.  I also
> agree, that the spokesmen, should be spokeswomen - or at the very least be
> well balanced.
<<<
Well THANK YOU Aniko! for oyur fisrt sentence, but WHAT does the second
one mean? The choice I think is that SHE ought to use birth control IF
she does not want to live with the consequences (or force her partner to
have). Yes nature (or God) has made this part of the bargain quite an
imbalance ---  yes men can walk away, women cannot -- believe me most men
do understand that! However, that still does not give the right to Chose
between life and death. There are many ways of prevention.

As they say one once of prevention is worht several pounds of cure!

Peter

On Sat, 12 Oct 1996, Stowewrite wrote:

> In article >, Zoltan Szekely
> > writes:
>
> >I could not agree more! What's more I dare to state, that the
> >media developed a huge mass of media-idiotic behavior in the
> >United States, who would believe everything if the media
> >repeats for them sufficiently long.
>
> This from a man who, about a week ago, was babbling about how he saw on
> t.v. that public schools are teaching children how to commit suicide.
<<<<<<<<< I object! There was no babbling there and for you to
characterize it at such shows your liberal perpectives. He has only
stated what he has heard on national TV. If that is babbling for you then
you cannot possibly be someone who can address issues with a clear mind!

>
>  My
examples: > > > >1. the hysterical attitude toward Saddam Hussein and Iraq
> >   just before the Gulf War
> >   (just for the record: I consider Saddam a stupid dictator,
> >   who represents the Middle Ages in the 20th century; but he
> >   does not qualify to be Mr. Evil Incarnated...
>
> Invading a peaceful neighbor and threatening to use chemical and
> biological agents on other neighbors is what's known as a sufficient
> provocation for war, not hysteria. The only hysteria involved was the
> hysteria to end the ground phase of the war in 100 hours. This
> indefensible marketing gimmick left your role model still in charge in
> Baghdad.
>
<<<<<< While there is NO attempt on my part to defend nor suppor anything
that Saddam has done to date, you are apparently overlooking the causes
of why he actually invaded Kuwait. Namely, the disagreements over who
owns certain key oil ricj island in ghte gulf.  I do agree however, that
the issue of not kicking his butt out while one had the chance was dumb.

 >
> > >2. the public acceptance of the Waco flames by the
American > >   people (in which flames many children were burnt to death)
> >   as an appropriate solution "to save children from the
> >   abuses of David Koresh"
> >   (just for the record: I consider David Koresh a stupid
> >   sectarian who distorted the teachings of the Christianity,
> >   and represented the spiritual darkness of the Middle Ages
> >   in the 20th century; but "saving" children from alleged
> >   abuses by actually BURNING THEM is completely unacceptable
> >   for me).
>
>
> You'll need to take that up with Koresh and his adult minions, if you can
> reach them through a trance medium or a Ouija board. They set the fires
> that killed those children.
>
<<<<<<<< Here is another example Stonewrite: All he was trying to explain
that the USA response was way too overbearing to a problem that should
have been difused much earlier and better. Why did hte govt fail to
arrest Koresh when he was freely walking about days before the tragedy?

> >> Religion may well be about God and Love, but churches appear to be more
> >> about power and control.
> >Not in the United States!! No church is in monopolistic
> >position here so that they could grab political power and
> >control. It is a very healthy situation and prevents any
> >church from being involved in high level political decisions.
>
> Yes, it is a very healthy situation. That may explain why Ralph Reed, Pat
> Robertson and the Christian Coalition are trying to reverse it. Once Bob
> Dole's political career has been interred with the corpse of moderate
> Republicanism here in a few weeks, they'll control the Republican Party.
> We shall see then how likely it is that they'll refrain from "being
> involved in high level political decisions." And, Zoltan? Any group of
> people who advocate impeaching the six U.S. Supreme Court justices who
> struck down Colorado's anti-homosexual law won't ever qualify as moderate
> in the United States.
<<<<<<<<< I am not sure about this one, but I am certain that it is NOT
only for htose reasons that one may want to impeach them for. They seem
to have mis-interpreted the basic tennts of the constitution that is why!
>
> Wow, what a complete citation! You would make a great homicide detective
> with your keen eye for detail.
<<<<<<<<Did you see the video Zoli is referring to??? If not that do not
be so mean and sarcastic. If it is something that you oppose than at
least have the courtesy to do some of your own research instead of just
babbling -- where have I heard that one before???

Peter

"Autumn Leaves: An Hungarian Love Story" will be aired next Sunday, October
20, on the CBC radio network across Canada.  It will be a part of "Sunday
Morning" which is broadcast every Sunday from 9am to 12noon.

"Autumn Leaves" is the story of Andras and Zsuzsi.  They met in Budapest in
1952 and fell in love with each other.  In 1956, when they were only 18
years old, they fled Hungary.  Andras ended up in England and Zsuzsi in
Canada.  They both married and raised a family but never forgot about each
other.  Then, many years later......

By the way, from the brief excerpt I heard this morning, it is a true story.

Joe Szalai

In a message dated 96-10-13 08:51:54 EDT,  (Ferenc Novak)
writes:

BOLOGNABOLOGNABOLOGNABOLOGNABOLOGNABOLOGNABOLOGNAB
ROSZINDULATROSZINDULATROSZINDULATROSZINDULATROSZINDULATROSZ

<< Someone on this list raised the possibility that the Hungarian propensity

 >commit suicide might in some way be connected to low self-esteem and a
 >feeling of helplessness in the midst of adverse historical events.  Reading
 >recent (and earlier) postings penned by Eva Balogh, I suddenly realized
that
 >in her person we may have the incarnation of the self-loathing and
perceived
 >inferiority that some attribute to the Hungarian psyche.  Eva rarely misses
a
 >chance to find fault with and denigrate the national character, historical
 >figures, most anythig ever accomplished by Hungary or Hungarians.  Her
 >attitude may actually harm her credibility by raising the question in the
 >reader: "How can I take seriously anything written by a member of such a
 >'stupid, backward, cowardly, racist' etc. (Eva's oft-used adjectives)
tribe?"
 >Is there a psychologist out there who could comment on this?>>

LIELIELIELIELIELIELIELIELIELIELIELIELIELIELIELIELIELIELIELIELIELIELIELIELIE
ROSZINDULATROSZINDULATROSZINDULATROSZINDULATROSZINDULATROSZ

Mr. Novak, as my "sor minta"  also indicates, your posting radiates
ill will.  It would be interesting to know indeed  what "a psychologist out
there
who could comment on this" your posting has to say. How interesting it is,
that you
only contribute to this list when you have an opportunity to "denigrate" a
member
of this group.

MEP

Mpflerr wrote:
>
> In article
> >, "Peter
> A. Soltesz" > writes:
>
> >Well Marina all I will say to you is what I said to Aniko
> >Both of your minds are in the gutter!
> >Shame on YOU!
>
> Ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!
> You are so full of yourself! Believe me, your opinion does not rate
> anything.....
> nem irjak a Wall Street-en......


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Marina, perhaps you are incorrect this time! Re the opinion of the gentleman in
question
you wrote,' nem irjak a Wall Street-en'. You could not have seen latest
graffiti on the walls
of the rest rooms ?

In another posting Peter has suggested to two people to have some "Clean fun"

I can only say: Peter, Peter! You are at again. Still, I thank you for
providing some
"clean fun" - I cannot stop laughing when reading some of your postings.
Please carry on and keep taking those vitamins!

          Wishing you a barrel full of " clean fun"    Mark O.F.

In article >, Zoltan Szekely
> writes:

>Yessire, and the shit is in your fan.
>                                                         (Sz.Z.)

This is either supposed to be "yes, sir" or the more colloquial
"yessiree." And the only feces issuing forth around here is from your
mouth.
Sam Stowe

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, of course, it's too dark to read."
-- Groucho Marx

In article >, Zoltan Szekely
> writes:

>
>The best critique about Victor Farias I ever read is one
>simple sentence:
>
>If he wrote a book about Heidegger, he at least could have
>tried to spend one hour to actually read his writings.
>
>That's enough about Victor Farias. I know, that he is a
>hero for your sophomore level understanding of the world,
>the Nazis and the Holocaust. I'm sorry. He is not a hero
>for me.
>                                                Sz. Zoli
>
>

And here we get to the core of your stupidity. You can't even offer a
citation for your quote. And one sentence? How do we know it hasn't been
plucked screaming from the context around it? I suspect you don't provide
a citation because its author's identity would immediately impeach it.
Sam Stowe

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, of course, it's too dark to read."
-- Groucho Marx

Ferenc Novak wrote:
>
> Someone on this list raised the possibility that the Hungarian propensity to
> commit suicide might in some way be connected to low self-esteem and a
> feeling of helplessness in the midst of adverse historical events.  Reading
> recent (and earlier) postings penned by Eva Balogh, I suddenly realized that
> in her person we may have the incarnation of the self-loathing and perceived
> inferiority that some attribute to the Hungarian psyche.  Eva rarely misses a
> chance to find fault with and denigrate the national character, historical
> figures, most anythig ever accomplished by Hungary or Hungarians.  Her
> attitude may actually harm her credibility by raising the question in the
> reader: "How can I take seriously anything written by a member of such a
> 'stupid, backward, cowardly, racist' etc. (Eva's oft-used adjectives) tribe?"
>
> Is there a psychologist out there who could comment on this?
>
> Ferenc
------


Agree!

Albert Albu

On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, Marina E. Pflieger wrote:
<SINPPETY>
>
> Hungary always had a high suicide rate. As far as alcoholizm is concerned,
> it has been  a problem in all communist countrys. But, it is a problem in
> the US as well. As with most things, EDUCATION is the answer.
<<<<<<<<<<< Educations is ONE of the answers. So is theeconomy,
reliugion, etc.
>
> Abortion, - it should be a womans right to choose! It is not used for birth
> control!

<<<<<< Well at least we agree on some things after all!
 The procedure is
painful, it is surgery. Who the hell would want to
> use this method of birth control. Get a life! Every person has to decide that
<<<<<<<<< I am staying out of it...in fact I strongly support that it
must be between the Woman and God. (Her family should also be incvolved
as support  and information and love).
I KNOW that it is not an easy thing. For some it is nothing for others
it is murder.
The ONLY time I want to be involved is if YOU (that is the generic you)
want for me pay for  it !
That is where I draw the line!

Or is it that the "Hungarian propensity to commit suicide" might be
connected to a refusal to admit that (like the rest of the human race)
Hungarians too commit sins and make mistakes, and therefore even such mild
and reasoned criticism as Eva's causes a deep depression (the usual cause
of suicide) in at least some Hungarians?


Norma Rudinsky


On Sun, 13 Oct 1996  wrote:

> Ferenc Novak wrote:
> >
> > Someone on this list raised the possibility that the Hungarian propensity t
o
> > commit suicide might in some way be connected to low self-esteem and a
> > feeling of helplessness in the midst of adverse historical events.  Reading
> > recent (and earlier) postings penned by Eva Balogh, I suddenly realized tha
t
> > in her person we may have the incarnation of the self-loathing and perceive
d
> > inferiority that some attribute to the Hungarian psyche.  Eva rarely misses
 a
> > chance to find fault with and denigrate the national character, historical
> > figures, most anythig ever accomplished by Hungary or Hungarians.  Her
> > attitude may actually harm her credibility by raising the question in the
> > reader: "How can I take seriously anything written by a member of such a
> > 'stupid, backward, cowardly, racist' etc. (Eva's oft-used adjectives)
 tribe?"
> >
> > Is there a psychologist out there who could comment on this?
> >
> > Ferenc
> ------
>
>
> Agree!
>
> Albert Albu
>

"When a man loves a woman..."

The abortion raises some theoretical questions
about the quality of human relationships. Here
is one of them:

Some women's attitude toward abortion is very
questionable. They think a couple of abortions
does not matter too much in the life. And they
don't even tell it to their mates. Hey, guys,
do you think it's alright?

I believe the honest thing would be to tell the
man the truth, especially if they are planning
to get married. A man should have the right to
know how many abortions were performed on the
future mother of his childrens before he
commits himself to the woman. (And it could be
a reason for a woman to go 'clean', as abortion
is concerned, into the marriage.) What do y'all
mean, is it a too big question to ask "when a
man loves a woman"?
                                       Sz. Zoli

Aniko Bunford:

> Enjoy - feel the words - relate!
>
> Edgar A Quest - Sermons we See:
>
> "I'd rather see a sermon, than hear one any day
> I'd rather one would walk with me, then merely show the way
> The eye's a better pupil and more willing than the ear
> Fine counsel is confusing, but example's always clear
> And the best of all the preachers, are the men who live their creeds
> For to see the good in action is what everybody needs
> I can soon learn how to do it, if you'll let me see it done
> I can watch your hands in action, but your tongue too fast may run
> And the lectures you deliver, may be very wise and true
> But I'd rather get my lesson, by observing what you do
> For I may misunderstand you and the high advice you give, but there's no
> misunderstanding in how you act and how you live".
>
> Aniko

I like the sermon, you quoted, Aniko. Thank you very much!
I also like the idea of quoting sermons in this list.
I promise, I try to keep up. Be patient, please, it's all
I ask you for.
                                                  Sz. Zoli

Norma Rudinsky:
>
> Or is it that the "Hungarian propensity to commit suicide" might be
> connected to a refusal to admit that (like the rest of the human race)
> Hungarians too commit sins and make mistakes, and therefore even such mild
> and reasoned criticism as Eva's causes a deep depression (the usual cause
> of suicide) in at least some Hungarians?
>
> Norma Rudinsky

The trouble, dear Norma, is that some women on this list
behave very typically. Many times they talk the good talk,
but in some other cases they do not. And, thanks to the
great success of the feminic movements, they completely
lost the ability to realize, when is it exactly when they
behave simply like 'a bunch of noisy females'.   :-( )

The big mistake is that they also assume, that men do not
realize it either. ;-)
                                                 Sz. Zoli

George Szaszvari:
>
> >In article >, Zoltan Szekely
> > writes:
>
> >>1. the hysterical attitude toward Saddam Hussein and Iraq
> >>   just before the Gulf War
> >>   (just for the record: I consider Saddam a stupid dictator,
> >>   who represents the Middle Ages in the 20th century; but he
> >>   does not qualify to be Mr. Evil Incarnated...
>
> Regardless of the cynical reasons (on all sides) for the Gulf War,
> Saddam Hussein comes pretty close to being Evil Incarnate, along
> with the likes of Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler.

Thank you very much for your comments, George. I agree
with you, adding that Saddam's physical appearence is
also resembling to that of Dzugashvili.

But the United States of America never bombarded Sztalin.
Not even before the WWII, when most of the crimes of
him were committed. Mikhail Gorbachev was celebrated as
a hero in the US, although he never cleared his account
about the Tbilisi Massacre, which happened around 1987.

Many times the minds of the American people in a couple of
questions look like a simple matter of social engeneering.

                                                Sz. Zoli

Hugh Agnew had a long comment about the 'religious war' going
on the list. I appreciate his posting and try to answer a
couple of questions knowing, that to answer all important things
mentioned is beyond my capacities:

> Dear fellow-listmembers,
>
> There must be some way of turning the discussion on religion and
> the position of the church(es) and the state towards Hungarian
> topics!  In any case, the logic of taking a general and
> unverified statment about the schools and extrapolating from it a
> blanket condemnation of public education in the United States,
> teachers, the National Education Association, etc. completely
> escapes me.
I don't condemn the public education in global. There are some
nasty things we should talk about, but it would not mean that
the general picture must be all bad. School choice is a big
issue nowadays, and probably would improve the situation.

I don't know too much about the NEA, but I believe something
is smelling around this big organization. It looks very
reasonable to cut the public support to the NEA, but I'm sure,
some of its achievements should be honored at the same time.

> On the other hand, just because the radio news this
> morning on my way to work included a story about a local case of
> sexual abuse by a priest of a young man in his parish, I don't
> see why that would logically lead me to a blanket condemnation of
> the Catholic Church, teaching orders, and priests in general.
As I can (and allowed) to judge it, you are completely right
in what you said about 'blanket condemnation'. (Some people,
who think their heavenly duty on this list is a 'blanket
condemnation' as the Holocaust is concerned, should also take
this seriously.)

> And as far as sex, lies and videotape go...  The people of
> Britain were recently treated also to a nice, titillating,
> salacious video.  Too bad it was a fake.
If you think that Father Kennedy's video was fake, I can not
do anything about it. (You may even close your mind in some
kind of solipsism, I can not do anything about it.) But there
should be some general agreement what is acceptable as a
reasonable proof for something and what is not.

> Now to turn to church and state: I think most of the Central
> and Eastern European states basically went at least part way to
> creating state supervision if not control over the churches after
> 1918 if not before.  Of course under communism it was even more
> direct, since the state consciously tried to propagate a
> "scientific" world view.
In Hungary they still teach Darwinism as the only possible
approach to the origin of the humankind.

> What's happening now?  What percentage of the Hungarian people
> reported their religious convictions on the last census?  I don't
> remember seeing the results, but I know that for instance (don't
> wince, George A.!:-) in the Czech lands the single largest group
> of the population is the group that reports "no religious
> affiliation," with Roman Catholics only in second place, and the
> various Protestant denominations bringing up the rear.
The Czechs are mainly protestants because of historical reasons
(Jan Hus, the Taborites, etc.)

> I have now seen the non-traditional sects and denominations
> there, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, the Krishna
> Consciousness movement, and many versions of evangelical and
> pentacostal Protestantism.  Are these movements also present in
> Hungary?
I'm, also curious. I guess they are not significant.

> What about the question of restitution?  If Church and State are
> to be separated, then -- so at least the Catholic Church in the
> Czech lands argues --  the Church needs to have back the means
> of making themselves financially independent.  It's debatable
> there, I assume it's debatable in Hungary too.
It is the future also in Hungary. No government should have any
business about supporting churches in the long run.

> Sincerely,
>
> Hugh Agnew
> 
>
With appreciation,                                    Sz. Zoli

In a message dated 96-10-13 10:12:11 EDT,  (Peter A.
Soltesz) writes:

 >> Wow, what a complete citation! You would make a great homicide detective
 >> with your keen eye for detail.
 <<<<<<<<Did you see the video Zoli is referring to??? If not that do not
> be so mean and sarcastic. If it is something that you oppose than at
>least have the courtesy to do some of your own research instead of just
>babbling -- where have I heard that one before???
> Peter >>
Peter,
Good question! I will ask *you* now...Did *you* see the video, did *you* hear
the
s'cermon from Dr.Kennedy? Please give us the details. Would like to see it
and hear it myself. This rivals the stuff comming from Lindon LaRouss (sp) -
like Queen Elizabeth is a drug smugler, so is Kissinger etc.

MEP

An addition to the letter to Hugh::

> I don't
> remember seeing the results, but I know that for instance (don't
> wince, George A.!:-) in the Czech lands the single largest group
> of the population is the group that reports "no religious
> affiliation," with Roman Catholics only in second place, and the
> various Protestant denominations bringing up the rear.

Of course, you can not omit the effects of 3 generation
of aggressive atheism in the public schools and in the
society at large. (You could not be, e.g., a member of
the Communist Party if you attended church.)

My estimation is, that we are going to lose one more
generation, because of the classic problem:

"But who is going to teach the teachers...??"

                                                (Sz.Z.)

Louis Elteto:

> Right, I don't get it. I have no idea what killing babies has to do with
> the taxation system that I was talking about, and I'm not particularly
> interested in arguing with you about it.
Sorry, it is indeed loosely related. Just forget it now.

> You can donate to any church of
> your choice in most of the world, even in Hungary.
The question is this: if a family has, let's assume, one check
for church purposes, whom should he give it? If they give the
amount directly to the church, the state takes another paycheck
from them, as tax, for church pusposes and the family ends up in
hunger because of overspending.

> The government Hungary,
> as that of many other states, gives churches a direct subsidy.
It is the 'other' paycheck collected from the tax payer. And
you can not tell the government at the moment, which church
should get your money.

> In the end the effect is very similar to
> the Hungarian system, only you don't see it that way.
The big difference is, that you send your own check to the
religious affiliation you chose without governmental intrusion.

> Actually, tax
> deductions for donations to charitable organizations are also a feature of
> the Hungarian tax system now, even though direct subsidies continue. -
It seems to me a sophisticated double taxation system: If you
want to control the fate of your check (at least some of your
checks) then you have to send it twice. Ugyes!

> Incidentally: you can also donate to the tax-exempt, charitable, not for
> profit abortion clinic OF YOUR CHOICE, which is thus also subsidized, just
> as your favorite tv-preacher is. It behooves you to understand what it is
> the praises of which you sing.
Thanks for the morbid example. I did not know this 'feature'
indeed. But how can an abortion clinic be a non-profit
organization? Is it not a kind of loop-hole of the system?

                                                    Sz. Zoli

At 08:42 AM 10/13/96 -0400, Ferenc Novak wrote:
>Someone on this list raised the possibility that the Hungarian propensity to
>commit suicide might in some way be connected to low self-esteem and a
>feeling of helplessness in the midst of adverse historical events.  Reading
>recent (and earlier) postings penned by Eva Balogh, I suddenly realized that
>in her person we may have the incarnation of the self-loathing and perceived
>inferiority that some attribute to the Hungarian psyche.  Eva rarely misses a
>chance to find fault with and denigrate the national character, historical
>figures, most anythig ever accomplished by Hungary or Hungarians.  Her
>attitude may actually harm her credibility by raising the question in the
>reader: "How can I take seriously anything written by a member of such a
>'stupid, backward, cowardly, racist' etc. (Eva's oft-used adjectives) tribe?"
>
>Is there a psychologist out there who could comment on this?

First, it would be much more productive for you to reply to individual
instances of these manifestations of "self loathing, etc.", thus Eva may
have a chance to answer to your accusations. Generalized statements like
those above are hard to reply to.

Second, would you prefer continuous self-adulation, even when it is not
deserved or not true?

Or do you agree with Pagony Lajcsi, who would like to close the Hungary list
because it shows Hungary in an unfavorable light?

Gabor D. Farkas

Hugh Agnew has written:


>: I think most of the Central
>and Eastern European states basically went at least part way to
>creating state supervision if not control over the churches after
>1918 if not before.  Of course under communism it was even more
>direct, since the state consciously tried to propagate a
>"scientific" world view.  The church as an institution survived,
>though, at varying costs to its position.  Usually it could be
>generalized that the Catholic church remained institutionally
>more resilient, though brave clergymen with the courage of their
>convictions existed in all denominations.
>
In Hungary the relationship of the "received religions" (the Roman Catholic
-incl. Byzantine Rite -, the Reformed, the Lutheran, the Orthodox, the
Unitarian and the 'Israelite') to the state is a complex issue both before
and after 1918, esp. that of the two largest Christian bodies, the RC and
the Reformed. Direct state supervision or control is not an accurate
assessment; a symbiosis of govt. and church is probably more accurate,
although there were wide variations and differences in political alignment
within the churches themselves, from liberal, populist strains, to
right-wing, nearly fascist manisfestations. After the establishment of
communist rule of course the control was direct, but even in this condition
it is easy to oversimplify. If we were to risk such simplification
nevertheless, we could say that the churches were split into factions that
sought to adapt to the situation as best they could, and those who took a
more rigid position. In the Catholic church, the latter followed Mindszenty
- as a symbol, at least.

>What's happening now?  What percentage of the Hungarian people
>reported their religious convictions on the last census?  I don't
>remember seeing the results, but I know that for instance (don't
>wince, George A.!:-) in the Czech lands the single largest group
>of the population is the group that reports "no religious
>affiliation," with Roman Catholics only in second place, and the
>various Protestant denominations bringing up the rear.

You have made me curious, and I spent a good deal of time on the Web trying
to find such statistics, but without success. I do not recall reading
census figures, but there have been some surveys, opinion polls on the
subject, which, alas, I cannot quote either. If I recall correctly, the
Hungarian religious scene is not very different from the Czech, except that
Hungary has traditionally had a larger variety of religions bodies than
have the Czech lands.

>I have now seen the non-traditional sects and denominations
>there, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, the Krishna
>Consciousness movement, and many versions of evangelical and
>pentacostal Protestantism.  Are these movements also present in
>Hungary?  What do most people think about them?  Do reactions to
>them get involved in identity politics?  (I mean, would people
>consider a Hungarian Mormon a RealHungarian (tm) or does that
>matter?).
>
Many 'non-traditional sects' have been present in Hungary since the late
19th century: Baptists, Adventist, even Methodists, which in the US are
mainline, but never quite made it in Hungary; Witnesses have been there,
too, as long as they have operated in Europe. The Mormons and the Krishna
movement are new, and there is so much foreign religious enterpreneurship
in present-day Hungary, that it is very difficult to have a clear
impression of just 'what's happening now." I am not aware of identity
problems at the present time. The more interesting phenomena are the
non-denominational evangelization crusades, and fundamentalism outside of
the mainline churches - though sometimes also cutting into and across their
lines. They are sure to produce serious  problems in due time - because
they may help push an already frustrated population toward a certain sector
of the right. The politics of paranoia is not absent from the leadership of
the mainline churches either.

>What about the question of restitution?  If Church and State are
>to be separated, then -- so at least the Catholic Church in the
>Czech lands argues --  the Church needs to have back the means
>of making themselves financially independent.  It's debatable
>there, I assume it's debatable in Hungary too.  Maybe somebody
>can enlighten me?  And what about religion and education?  Is
>religion a subject in public/state schools?  Are private
>religious schools permitted?  How are they accredited or are
>they?  I'd be interested to know.

Restitution is an important issue. For legal and other reasons - the world
has changed, after all, in the last half century - it cannot be expected
that the large estates that once furnished the major portion of the income
of the mainline churches - can be restored to them. But without that, the
churches are dependent on an always inadequate state support, and on
"foreign aid" from coreligionists abroad. The Hungarian people, even if
they were willing, could not maintain their churches on a healthy level,
because they are too poor, even though there are many local examples to the
contrary. Religious education in public schools is allowed, not mandatory;
a few private religious schools (some of outstanding quality and
reputation) operated even during the communist years; many have been
"reprivatized" recently, but their maintenance and operating expenses are a
burden, and state support cannot be avoided. The religious schools are not
totally free of the Ministry of Education, though they do enjoy special
privileges in administration and curriculum.

Some statistics that may be of interest, for the RC church only: in 1989,
the Church operated a total of 17 educational institutions: 2 elementary
schools, 8 secondary prep schools (gimnazium), 1 vocational high school,
and six colleges (koll=E9giumok). By 1994, it operated 169 institutions,
incl. 32 kindergartens, 60 elementary schools, 60 gimnaziums, 12 technical
and vocational schools, and 32 colleges.

Nevertheless, the percentage of all religious school enrollments, not just
RC,  in the entire country was merely 0.8% for kindergartens, 2.3% for
elementary schools, 4.6% for secondary schools, and 2.2% for higher
education, in the same year. The number of properties which churches have
requested a return of or other settlement during 1992-96, by denomination:
RC 254, Reformed 188, Lutheran 74, Israelite 13, Serb Orthodox 2, Romanian
Orthodox 5, Hungarian Orthodox 2, and 1 each for the Adventists, Baptists
and the Unitarians (1996 projected). The total outlay from the state budget
for these property settlemens in the above period was 2,582 million Ft for
the churches directly, plus 8,933 million Ft paid to other institutions
(compensation). (Source: UKI [Ungarisches Kirchensoziologisches Institut,
Vienna] Sajtotajekoztato #43, apr., 1995.)

Louis Elteto

At 10:30 PM 10/13/96 -0400, Zoli Szekely wrote:

>Some people,
>who think their heavenly duty on this list is a 'blanket
>condemnation' as the Holocaust is concerned, should also take
>this seriously

What do you mean by this? The Holocaust does not deserve blanket
condemnation? Only some aspects of it? Or what?>

>In Hungary they still teach Darwinism as the only possible
>approach to the origin of the humankind.

In most US public schools this is the case too.

Gabor D. Farkas

Hugh Agnew wrote:

>   On the other hand, just because the radio news this
> morning on my way to work included a story about a local case of
> sexual abuse by a priest of a young man in his parish, I don't
> see why that would logically lead me to a blanket condemnation of
> the Catholic Church, teaching orders, and priests in general.

No, but.  There is an increasing number of documented cases of sexual abuse
or mere violation of celibacy by Catholic clergy (among others) around the
world.  Some people find it rather hypocritical that while the Catholic
church is doing everything to hide its own warts (yes, it has been
documented in many countries) it carries on about the morality of lay
people as if nothing had happened.  But I digress.

> What's happening now?  What percentage of the Hungarian people
> reported their religious convictions on the last census?  I don't
> remember seeing the results, but I know that for instance (don't
> wince, George A.!:-) in the Czech lands the single largest group
> of the population is the group that reports "no religious
> affiliation," with Roman Catholics only in second place, and the
> various Protestant denominations bringing up the rear.

I have no data on hand on the denominational breakdown of actively
religious people in Hungary, but the traditional Catholic majority
would still be there.

On the other hand, data that I have seen recently put the proportion of
actively religious (e.g., weekly churchgoer) population at 8-10% of
the total which is pretty well the percentage supporting the Christian
Democrats electorally.  Perhaps that much again or a bit more are occasional
churchgoers (Christmas and Easter) and take some/all main rites.  In general,
the Czech situation sounds quite familiar.

> I have now seen the non-traditional sects and denominations
> there, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, the Krishna
> Consciousness movement, and many versions of evangelical and
> pentacostal Protestantism.  Are these movements also present in
> Hungary?

The Hare Krishna have their Central-European headquarters in Hungary
and opened an education centre.  They are also active in charity.
US representatives of various charismatic churches and sects, including
the ones you mention have started up their proselytizing in Hungary
(probably a number two difficulty training ground for missionaries after
the likes of Australia).

There has long been an established Jehova's Witnesses chapter in
Hungary and I have attended a Baptist service for a reasonable crowd
around 1975, but this was probably the most unconventional at that time.

>  What do most people think about them?  Do reactions to
> them get involved in identity politics?  (I mean, would people
> consider a Hungarian Mormon a RealHungarian (tm) or does that
> matter?).

My impression is that most Hungarians consider everyone outside the
traditional mainline churches a weirdo, particularly the likes of
Hare Krishna.  This will change with time as Hungarian society opens
up more to outside influences and becomes more tolerant.  That said,
the statistics indicate that most Hungarians do not care much about
religion as such, despite the high expectations of the churches after
the change of systems.

More than that, the churches have rushed in rather brazenly and tried
to force through their social agenda after 1990, creating a backlash
in society.  Hungary is no Poland and even in Poland the Catholic
church has overplayed its hand.  Besides, unlike in Poland or East
Germany, neither of the churches had much resistance to the Communist
government to point to (since Mindszenty, of course).  On the contrary,
they had a rather compliant and slightly compromised reputation, so
their newfound voice was heard with considerable scepticism.

> What about the question of restitution?  If Church and State are
> to be separated, then -- so at least the Catholic Church in the
> Czech lands argues --  the Church needs to have back the means
> of making themselves financially independent.  It's debatable
> there, I assume it's debatable in Hungary too.  Maybe somebody
> can enlighten me?

TO my knowledge, there is restitution of church properties involved in
prayer and education but not those used for income generation.  In
exchange, the government continues to provide funds to the traditional
churches.  This is one bone of contention on part of the newcomers:
they do not get government handouts.

> And what about religion and education?  Is
> religion a subject in public/state schools?

The Catholic church tried to get compulsory religous courses introduced
into the state curriculum under the right-wing coalition but it caused
rather wide outcry and the government thought is wiser not to proceed.

>Are private
> religious schools permitted?  How are they accredited or are
> they?  I'd be interested to know.

There are schools run by the traditional churches, but I am not sure
if the newer sects or religions could get accreditation as a school.

George Antony

At 08:00 PM 12/10/96 -0700, you wrote:
>>At 09:58 AM 10/12/96 -0700, Louis Elteto  wrote:
>>>>At 03:20 PM 10/11/96 -0400, Peter Soltesz wrote:
>>
>>>Is Peter Soltesz "exactly one of those men" who do these things? Has he,
>>>ergo, as normal for  such men, left his wife and children behind?  Or is it
>>>that men in general leave wives and children, pay no support, and rarely
>>>take care of their children? - If you mean the former, you are doing
>>>Soltesz an injustice; if the latter, your ad genus argument includes me,
>>>and I should resent it.
>>
>>This argument can only be ad genus, since only men can leave their wives and
>>children, etc. Therefore, I suggest that only those should resent it (or
>>rather feel ashamed) who did those things.
>>
>>Gabor D. Farkas
>
>Why, then, aim at the whole genus?
>
>Louis Elteto

Could it be, perhaps, because the "other genus" simply takes it for granted
that intelligence, reasoning power, ability to apply; - by either might be
on an equal level? Just a thought ....

Regards,
Aniko.