It's not as if the Hungarian Lobby is looking for feedback -- in fact
they appear to have a write-only connection to the list -- but here it
goes, anyway:

> Hungary's position in the Danube lawsuit at the International Court
> of Justice in The Hague is very promising. However, even if the court
> rules in favour for the environment it is possible that the Slovak
> government does not accept the sentence.

The sentence?  You mean the verdict, right?  No one is going to be
sentenced, not in this round anyway.

(Not that they should not be -- all the way back to Gero and Gottwald,
the guys who started the whole accursed dam business in the fifties --
but they are unfortunately out of reach, gone to the great Politburo
in the sky.)

> It is important that influential politicians of USA support our
> position, since in this case Slovakia probably does not dare to reject
> the decision of the court.

A sad but all too typical case of counting your chicken before they
hatched.  The Lobby in its collective wisdom seems to take it for granted
that the court will rule in favor of Hungary.  But the verdict may go
either way.  Courts do the darndest things.  They may conclude that
Hungary is right, the treaty is indeed null and void, and then turn around
and proclaim that Hungary has to pay 50% of the cost of restoration.
Or 80%.  Or even 100%, perhaps on the theory that even though Slovakia
was in the wrong, they acted in good faith in implementing Variant C.

What will happen then?  Unless I am mistaken, the parties are supposed
to negotiate a settlement within six months.  And if they fail, then the
issue goes back to the Hague for a binding decision on who pays what to
whom.  If such a thing comes to pass, Hungary will need all the
negotiating elbow room it can get.  Which means asking to have the U.S.
officially bless the verdict before it is in can turn into a double-edged
sword.

It seems to me the prudent action is to wait until the court renders its
verdict.  Getting a statement out of Albright at this point may turn out
to be a Pyrrhic victory.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

Sorry if I'm jumping in late, boys. I didn't see Gabor's original post.


In article >, George Antony
> writes:

>Subject:       Re: church growth in Hungary
>From:  George Antony >
>Date:  Tue, 29 Apr 1997 13:38:43 +1000
>
>Gabor Fencsik wrote:
>
>> I am a bit perplexed by the vehemence of the Mormon-bashing
>> contingent.  Perhaps George or Sam or Joe can explain (in 200 words
>> or less) why is it that anti-Mormon bigotry is any more acceptable
>> than bigotry directed at any other religion.

Perhaps Gabor can explain at any length of his choosing how I bashed
Mormonism in general rather than Krystof in particular. One misguided
missionary does not a misguided church make. I have lived next to Mormons,
worked with them, fed their missionaries and tried to date their
daughters. I like Mormons. They're decent people. But the missionary stuff
can be annoying.

>
>A nice unloaded question, perhaps the next one will be when I stopped
>beating my wife.

Good one, George.

<sznip>
>
>This is quite apart from the vacuousness of calling someone going around
>in established Christian countries recruiting for another denomination of
>Christianity a missionary, as if such activity lead to a net gain for
>the cause of Jesus Christ.  But the latter sentiment probably reflects
>an uncommonly ecumenical world view.
>
>This said, I have admiration for people who go to really rough places to
>spread the word and do some practical things for the locals too.  The
>role of Lutherans in New Guinea would be my example: they converted, they
>set up schools to teach literacy and numeracy, they helped to establish
>new agricultural practices, and they stayed put after WWI when Germans
>were treated pretty badly in their former colonies by the winners.
>
>Compared to these guys anyone boasting about being a missionary in
Hungary
>in the late 1980s is a bloody wanker.
>
>George Antony

George has pretty much summed up my feelings on the subject as well. I
admire the Mormons for requiring their children to go out as missionaries.
I think the church does, however, have an unnecessarily restrictive view
of what constitutes Christian missionary work. I think the missionaries
and the people they attempt to minister to would both be better off if the
mission work consisted of building homes, feeding the  poor, etc. rather
than trying to pester them into reading the Book of Mormon.
Sam Stowe

Think globally;
act erratically.

In article >,
Janos Zsargo > writes:

>Subject:       Re: church growth in Hungary
>From:  Janos Zsargo >
>Date:Tue, 29 Apr 1997 01:18:56 -0400
>
>S.Stowe wrote:
>
>>Since I live in North Carolina, then I understand you -- this would be
an
>>argument taken directly from the Janos Zsargo school of logic. It may
>>comfort you to know that you have rather a catholic and universal
>>annoyance factor thanks to your incessant desire to talk about yourself.
>>Culture be damned -- you'd be a boring nuisance in any language.
>
>Well, thank you for dragging me into the conversation.

Any time. Would you like some iced tea?

>As far as I
>concerned I am more annoyed by you and your fellow (J.Szalai) than
>by Kristof. I know next to nothing about the Mormon Church, and I am
>not really intended to learn much about it (sorry Kristof).

Good for you! Your ignorance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints will match your ignorance of many other vast areas of human
endeavor thanks to this decision. At least you're consistent!

>However
>the hard-core liberal BS what Joe advertise on this list all the time
>can be as ridicoulous as any of its hard-core religious counterpart
>(which is not the case with Kristof, because he did not try to preach
>on the list, yet).

I will leave Joe to deal with this attack on his character. I didn't know
Joe held a bachelor's of science degree, by the way.

>You know Sam, Kristof at least went to Hungary, lived there for a while,
>got to know the Hungarians personally and not just read books for a
decade
> or so and listened to some tapes of 'Muzsikas'. And the
>most important, he did not try to teach and explain our History to us
>and after an extensive (but who knows how intensive) readings he did
>not write about Jelasic as the leader of 'southern Serbs'.

Krystof goes to Hungary and comes away with precious little understanding
of the place. You come to the States for a couple of years of college and
still can't tell shit from Shinola when it comes to American history,
culture, politics, et al. I study Hungary from a 3,000 mile remove and
have some basic grasp of what's going on there. You tell me who's not
hitting on all four cylinders.

>>I don't think it's too presumptious to say that most people are well
>>within their rights to ignore a 19 year-old standing on their doorstep
>>raving about something dear to his heart when he doesn't know jack-shit
>>about the real world. You apparently didn't learn courage as much as you
>>learned to be smug.
>
>Sam, you are talking about the reality?! You, who would send the mass-
>-murderers to UN mission or want NAFTA for East-Europe?

This, as I have pointed out before, is another Jancsi favorite -- taking
stuff way out of context. You wouldn't happen to hold creationist views,
would you? I should be so lucky. By the bye -- pretty long post what you
wrote for a guy who starts off whining about being dragged into this
thread.
Sam Stowe


Think globally;
act erratically.

In article >,  (George
Szaszvari) writes:

>  It would be
>interesting to know whether the Americans on this list are familiar
>with the expression.
>
>

Yes, I am. What would the equivalent insult be in Hungarian? "Zsargo"?
Sam Stowe

Think globally;
act erratically.

Joe Szalai wrote:
>
> At 09:55 PM 4/28/97 -0400, Gabor Farkas wrote:
>
> >At 06:47 PM 4/28/97 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
> >
> >>Except for 40 years of this century, Russia doesn't have a history of
> >>attacking Europe.  On the other hand, European nations have attacked
> >>Russia often.
> >
> >It is more like fifty or sixty years. Considering that it includes my
> >whole life, for me it seems to be an eternity.
>
> Not everything is what it seems to be.
>
> Joe Szalai
Very much indeed, Joe, in this case!

Gabor Fencsik wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, George Antony wrote:
>
> > This said, I have admiration for people who go to really rough places to
> > spread the word and do some practical things for the locals too.  The
> > role of Lutherans in New Guinea would be my example: they converted, they
> > set up schools to teach literacy and numeracy, they helped to establish
> > new agricultural practices, and they stayed put after WWI when Germans
> > were treated pretty badly in their former colonies by the winners.
> >
> > Compared to these guys anyone boasting about being a missionary in Hungary
> > in the late 1980s is a bloody wanker.
>
> Interesting.  In colloquial American English the word 'wanker' is used,
> by adolescents mostly, to denigrate a person who masturbates in excess
> of the norm.  A 'bloody wanker', I suppose, would refer to a person who
> masturbates considerably in excess of the norm.  Does the word have a
> different meaning to the Aussies down under?  If so, what?  Just curious...
>
> -----
> Gabor Fencsik
Good question. I have a British-American Dictionary, largen than a
couple of pages. I forgot the Aussies...they ought to hava a language,
too.
MKH

Eva Durant wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > >Who is the enemy exactly?
> > >
> > > Well, Russia or The Soviet Union or Commonwealth of Independent States
> > > or whatever is her actual name.
> > >
> > > J.Zs
> > >
> >
> > Any evidence? I thought there we have an internationally accepted
> > democracy, building wonderful capitalism, even if in the somewhat
> > erratic, latin-american way...
> > 
Eva, somebody should care for you...or forgive, you were probably
joking. Yes! And a jolly good joke it was!
MKH

Charles Vamossy wrote:
>
> ----------
> From:   Joe Szalai
> Sent:   Monday, April 28, 1997 6:47 PM
> To:     Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY
> Subject:        Re: NYTimes on NATO
>
> At 12:57 PM 4/28/97 -0400, Janos Zsargo wrote:
>
> >E.Durant wrote:
> >
> >>tremendous expence, nuclear weapons and troups
> >>to be stationed in Hungary? I don't think so.
> >>Who is the enemy exactly?
>
> >Well, Russia or The Soviet Union or Commonwealth of Independent States or
> >whatever is her actual name.
>
> Except for 40 years of this century, Russia doesn't have a history of
> attacking Europe.  On the other hand, European nations have attacked Russia
> often.
>
> Joe Szalai
>
> I seem to recall reading something about a brief visit to Hungary from our
>  friends in 1849...

Well, don4t forget the Balkan Wars, Peter th Great, etc, etc,
well behind. The Baltic Area was not assigned to Russia by the
Creator...And go back to the Rus of Kiew and ask the Polish,
the Romanians, ....

Joe Szalai wrote:
>
> At 12:57 PM 4/28/97 -0400, Janos Zsargo wrote:
>
> >E.Durant wrote:
> >
> >>tremendous expence, nuclear weapons and troups
> >>to be stationed in Hungary? I don't think so.
> >>Who is the enemy exactly?
>
> >Well, Russia or The Soviet Union or Commonwealth of Independent States or
> >whatever is her actual name.
>
> Except for 40 years of this century, Russia doesn't have a history of
> attacking Europe.  On the other hand, European nations have attacked Russia
> often.
>
> Joe Szalai
Is it possible, that you are just neglecting considerable parts of
Russian history?
Artists ( history is not a science, it4s arts-I was tought ) on the
front!
MKH

George Antony wrote:
>
> Kristof wrote:
>
> > George Antony wrote:
> >> Why, what a sacrifice, riding the tram with Hungarians and eating with
> >> them!  I suggest your concept of hardship is somewhat cushy and/or or your
> >> wording is pretty patronizing.  Though, I suppose you were still more
> >> exposed to a harshly different world than those fellow churchmen of yours
> >> whom I regularly have to pry away from my front gate in Australia.
>
> > Spoken like someone who has never gone out into the world as a 19-year-old
> > and tried to make people listen to something dear to you -- and knowing
> > most won't -- and still learning to be courageous in the face of it.  It's
> > a hardship to go from Canberra to Sydney under those conditions, let alone
> > from Virginia to Budapest.
>
> Hardship is hardly the word for it.  Challenge, perhaps, but still self-
> sought and it would still apply if you went next door.  It would be hardship
> if you had gone to Mali.
>
> > Ah, well.  I don't know what I was expecting.  Just a question, though --
> > is there not a phrase in Hungarian "ahany nyelv, annyi ember"?  I was
> > willing to make an effort to understand and come to love a totally foreign
> > people, and to pay for the privilege.
>
> This is called tourism.  Millions of young people do it all the time, mostly
> enjoy it and do not expect to be revered for it.  In your case it was mixed
> with business which does not make it any more heroic.
>

What I do object in this discussion is twofold. I was emberessed
learning about Kristofs "nobleness" ( I felt that was not something
for display ). But albeit I do not share his views, I do not think
ANYONE of you is competent or entiteled to act as a jugde about
his moitivations, qualities or whatsoever.

>
> > When you have spent two years in Virginia trying to understand me, as I
> > did two years in Budapest to understand Hungarians, your comments will
> > have some bearing on the discussion.

Again, it4s not up to you to judge.

MKH

On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, Joe Szalai wrote:

> Religion is just so much piffle.  I have no use for it.  Mind you, I
> believe in freedom of religion.  I also believe I have a right to express
> my thoughts on the topic.  Religion and religious people do not agree with
> me.  Does that make me intolerant?

It does not make you intolerant.  It does make you come across sounding
like a jerk though, if you forgive me saying so.

To be more precise: I don't think tolerance itself is a supreme virtue.
Respecting the dignity of others is.  Religion is one of those things that
go the the very center of people's existence -- like family, ethnicity, or
sexual identity.  Therefore it must be treated with special care.  If I may
suggest a Gedankenexperiment, let's try out your sentence with a few minor
twists:

[Specimen #1] "Religion and religious people do not agree with me.
Does that make me intolerant?"

[Specimen #2] "Homosexuality and homosexuals give me the creeps.
Does that make me intolerant?"

I trust you can come up with other variants.  In each of these cases
the (putative) speaker may be stating a fact.  He may be perfectly
within his right in stating it, and he may even have perfectly sensible
reasons of his own for feeling this way.  But if the speaker is someone
who believes in showing a decent respect for the dignity of others, then
he would keep his opinion to himself.  Or share it, if he must, with a
small circle of his very best drinking buddies.  If you catch my drift...

-----
Gabor Fencsik

I don't agree. Religion is not out of bounds; it sticks
to statements that has no evidence, and attempts to
rule people's actions, based on these shaky grounds.
 I have the right to question
(very politely, ofcourse) the uncritical acceptence of irrational
beliefs. I have no right to do anything else, ofcourse, unless
there are human rights abused in the name of such beleives - which
happens quite a lot all over the planet, unfortunately.
It is not like born a particular colour or inclanation.
It is something people can, and often reconsider.
Eva D



>
> To be more precise: I don't think tolerance itself is a supreme virtue.
> Respecting the dignity of others is.  Religion is one of those things that
> go the the very center of people's existence -- like family, ethnicity, or
> sexual identity.  Therefore it must be treated with special care.  If I may
> suggest a Gedankenexperiment, let's try out your sentence with a few minor
> twists:
>
> [Specimen #1] "Religion and religious people do not agree with me.
> Does that make me intolerant?"
>
> [Specimen #2] "Homosexuality and homosexuals give me the creeps.
> Does that make me intolerant?"
>
> I trust you can come up with other variants.  In each of these cases
> the (putative) speaker may be stating a fact.  He may be perfectly
> within his right in stating it, and he may even have perfectly sensible
> reasons of his own for feeling this way.  But if the speaker is someone
> who believes in showing a decent respect for the dignity of others, then
> he would keep his opinion to himself.  Or share it, if he must, with a
> small circle of his very best drinking buddies.  If you catch my drift...
>
> -----
> Gabor Fencsik

At 07:35 PM 4/29/97 -0400, Peter Hidas wrote:

<snip>
>Hungary was attacked in 1849...Poland...Sweden...Alexander I marched with
>his troops all the way to Paris; not a particularly defensive action. The
>Danubian Principalities (present day Romania) was attacked several times by
>Russia...The list can be made longer.

Fair enough, Peter.  Since we're talking about the prowess of big powers,
do you know how many countries in Latin America have NOT experienced US
military intervention.  Do you know how many have experienced intervention
more than once?

Joe Szalai

At 01:03 AM 4/30/97 -0700, Gabor Fencsik wrote:

<snip>
>It does not make you intolerant.  It does make you come across sounding
>like a jerk though, if you forgive me saying so.

I've been called worse.  You don't mean to harm me, so no forgiveness is
necessary.

>To be more precise: I don't think tolerance itself is a supreme virtue.
>Respecting the dignity of others is.  Religion is one of those things that
>go the the very center of people's existence -- like family, ethnicity, or
>sexual identity.  Therefore it must be treated with special care.  If I may
>suggest a Gedankenexperiment, let's try out your sentence with a few minor
>twists:
>
>[Specimen #1] "Religion and religious people do not agree with me.
>Does that make me intolerant?"
>
>[Specimen #2] "Homosexuality and homosexuals give me the creeps.
>Does that make me intolerant?"
>
>I trust you can come up with other variants.  In each of these cases
>the (putative) speaker may be stating a fact.  He may be perfectly
>within his right in stating it, and he may even have perfectly sensible
>reasons of his own for feeling this way.  But if the speaker is someone
>who believes in showing a decent respect for the dignity of others, then
>he would keep his opinion to himself.  Or share it, if he must, with a
>small circle of his very best drinking buddies.  If you catch my drift...

I catch your drift and I don't agree.

I didn't choose being born to Hungarian parents.  I didn't choose being
born male.  And I didn't choose my sexual orientation.  Religion does not
belong with those immutable human characteristics.  Religious faith can be
suspended, altered, denied, changed, or abandoned.

I have a question regarding you "showing a decent respect for the dignity
of others".  How much respect do you have for those young men who do a
suicidal bomb attack on a bus full of innocent people, knowing that those
attacks are sanctioned by some religious leaders and knowing that those
young men believe that their personal 'sacrifice' means going to heaven?

I also have to wonder how much respect you'd have for the dignity of others
if you lived in a theocracy, like Iran, or Afganistan?  And what about
non-theocratic states where the laws reflect a particular religious view.
What about the dignity of women who can't get safe, theraputic abortions,
because the law reflects religious teachings?  And what about the dignity
of the approximately 400 million homosexuals worldwide who are forced to
live half-lives because of the religious beliefs of others.

I have no problem with people's private, personal, religious belief
system(s).  I don't have a problem with human rights laws that protect
those rights.  However, I have a problem when their faith impinges on my
rights to be free of it.  Is that too much to expect?

Joe Szalai

At 01:38 PM 4/29/97 +1000, George Antony wrote:

<snip>
>Compared to these guys anyone boasting about being a missionary in Hungary
>in the late 1980s is a bloody wanker.

You make it sound as if masturbation is a bad thing.  It is not.

The way I look at it, Kristof's problem, if he has one, is that he's not
wanking enough.  If he did, he'd have a better grip on "existing reality".
But, that's his shortcoming.

Joe Szalai

At 8:18 AM -0400 4/30/97, Joe Szalai wrote:
>At 07:35 PM 4/29/97 -0400, Peter Hidas wrote:
>
><snip>
>>Hungary was attacked in 1849...Poland...Sweden...Alexander I marched with
>>his troops all the way to Paris; not a particularly defensive action. The
>>Danubian Principalities (present day Romania) was attacked several times by
>>Russia...The list can be made longer.
>
>Fair enough, Peter.  Since we're talking about the prowess of big powers,
>do you know how many countries in Latin America have NOT experienced US
>military intervention.  Do you know how many have experienced intervention
>more than once?
>
>Joe Szalai

I thought we were discussing the importance of Hungary joining NATO. If
that is the case I do not see the relevance of US policies in South
America. When did the US attack Hungary? In fact, many Hungarians would be
happy to see a little American "occupation". We were certainly hoping for
it in 1945.

Peter

****************** CALL FOR ACTION ****************

Priority:      normal

Background:
  A new success for the Hungarian Lobby: According to an announcement
of Al Gore and Madeleine Albright the new foreign policy of the US
government will deal with the protection of natural treasures all over
the World. This policy is regarded as an integral part of national
security.
  The result of this new foreign policy is that the USA will open 12
regional offices in the 12 environmentally most endangered areas in
the World. Thus, our next goal is to reach that one of these offices
will establish in Gyor (Northwest of Hungary). This step would show
the American care for the Danube to the whole World.

What to do:
  Please help to persuade the Clinton, Gore and Albright to open one
of the planned offices in Gyor. Feel free to use the attached form
letters.
   IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE POLITICIANS FIND THOUSANDS OF LETTERS IN
THEIR MAILBOX. PLEASE ACT!! Please SEND EVEN SNAIL MAILS. These are
more effective.

e-mail address of President Clinton:


e-mail of Vice President Gore:


e-mail of the Secretary of State Albright:


*************************************************************
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter to Clinton:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<date>

The Honorable Bill Clinton
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20001
(e-mail: )

RE: Establishment of environmental office in Gyor (Hungary)

Dear Mr. President:

Please consider the city of Gyor in Hungary, as one of the 12 new
regional environmental hubs to be established by the State Department.
This would show your interest in the survival of the natural treasures
of the Szigetkoz wetlands, which evolved from Europe's only inland
sea-delta and survived since the last Ice Age.

The Szigetkoz Wetlands are endangered since Slovakia illegally
diverted the Danube river, depriving Hungary of her natural resource.
The result is devastating environmental damage.

Respectfully yours,

<Your name, address, title>



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter to Gore:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<date>

The Honorable Al Gore
Vice President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20001
(e-mail: )

RE: Establishment of environmental office in Gyor (Hungary)

Dear Mr. Vice President:

Please consider the city of Gyor in Hungary, as one of the 12 new
regional environmental hubs to be established by the State Department.
This would show your interest in the survival of the natural treasures
of the Szigetkoz wetlands, which evolved from Europe's only inland
sea-delta and survived since the last Ice Age.

The Szigetkoz Wetlands are endangered since Slovakia illegally
diverted the Danube river, depriving Hungary of her natural resource.
The result is devastating environmental damage.

Respectfully yours,

<Your name, address, title>


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
letter to Albright:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<date>

The Honorable Madeleine Albright
United States Secretary of State
United States Department of State
Washington, DC 20520
( E-Mail:  )

RE: Establishment of environmental office in Gyor (Hungary)

Dear Madame Secretary:

Please consider the city of Gyor in Hungary, as one of the 12 new
regional environmental hubs to be established by the State Department.
This would show your interest in the survival of the natural treasures
of the Szigetkoz wetlands, which evolved from Europe's only inland
sea-delta and survived since the last Ice Age.

The Szigetkoz Wetlands are endangered since Slovakia illegally
diverted the Danube river, depriving Hungary of her natural resource.
The result is devastating environmental damage.

Respectfully yours,

<Your name, address, title>

Joe Szalai wrote:
>
> At 02:49 PM 4/29/97 -0400, Eva Balogh wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >I have been tempted to write something about this but then inertia
> >set in. I am glad, Gabor, that you said something. I am especially
> >surprised about our "tolerant" Joe who seems to have a completely
> >blind spot when it comes to religion.
>
> Religion is just so much piffle.  I have no use for it.  Mind you, I
> believe in freedom of religion.  I also believe I have a right to express
> my thoughts on the topic.  Religion and religious people do not agree with
> me.  Does that make me intolerant?
>
> <snip>
> >I visited Salt Lake City and I found the scene rather odd but I am
> >open-minded enough to admit that there are some people who are
> >attracted to the teachings of Joseph Smith.
>
> And some people in Hungary are attracted to the teachings of Torgyan.
> Nuttiness, whether political or religious, is fair game for criticism and
> ridicule.
>
> >Moreover, if their missionary work is successful: well, who am I to
> >criticize either them or their followers. ESB
>
> Why don't you take such a laissez faire attitude towards Marx or Marxists,
> or other political theorists and their followers?  Is this a case of
> applying a double standard just because one is an attitude toward religion
> and the other is toward politics?  Please keep in mind that some of the
> nastiest conflicts in the world today are 'religion' based.
>
> Joe Szalai

Plain yes.

E.Durant wrote:

>I don't agree. Religion is not out of bounds; it sticks
>to statements that has no evidence, and attempts to
>rule people's actions, based on these shaky grounds.

This is true for any kind of philosophy. There is no
scientifically proven 'belief'. Whenever you decide
not to believe in any god you simple choose a different
axioma than those who believe.

> I have the right to question
>(very politely, ofcourse) the uncritical acceptence of irrational
>beliefs. I have no right to do anything else, ofcourse, unless
>there are human rights abused in the name of such beleives - which
>happens quite a lot all over the planet, unfortunately.
>It is not like born a particular colour or inclanation.
>It is something people can, and often reconsider.

I agree, and I would add that we have not only the right of
questioning beliefs but we should do so.

J.Zs

S.Stowe wrote:

>culture, politics, et al. I study Hungary from a 3,000 mile remove and
>have some basic grasp of what's going on there.

As it was clearly demonstrated by your comment "...wasn't there a guy
called Jelacic the leader of the southern serbs..." . I see.

>>Sam, you are talking about the reality?! You, who would send the mass-
>>-murderers to UN mission or want NAFTA for East-Europe?
>
>This, as I have pointed out before, is another Jancsi favorite -- taking
>stuff way out of context. You wouldn't happen to hold creationist views,

The problem is, as I told earlier, these concepts do not make any
sense in any kind of context. Or you may elaborate to us how you meant them.

J.Zs

At 09:07 PM 4/29/97 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:

>Religion is just so much piffle.  I have no use for it.  Mind you, I
>believe in freedom of religion.  I also believe I have a right to express
>my thoughts on the topic.  Religion and religious people do not agree with
>me.  Does that make me intolerant?

        Yes, I think so.

>>I visited Salt Lake City and I found the scene rather odd but I am
>>open-minded enough to admit that there are some people who are
>>attracted to the teachings of Joseph Smith.
>
>And some people in Hungary are attracted to the teachings of Torgyan.
>Nuttiness, whether political or religious, is fair game for criticism and
>ridicule.

        First and foremost I have been warning people for a long time that
not taking Torgyan seriously is a mistake. Calling him a clown and laugh at
his antics are shortsighted. So, let's not talk about "nuttiness" in
connection with Torgyan. "Dangerous" would be a much more apt description.
        Second, I don't think that a religion can be compared to a platform
of a political party.
>
>>Moreover, if their missionary work is successful: well, who am I to
>>criticize either them or their followers. ESB
>
>Why don't you take such a laissez faire attitude towards Marx or Marxists,
>or other political theorists and their followers?

        Marxism has "scientific" claims. It contains, among other things, a
scientific explanation for history, economics, and politics. Religion has no
claim on science. On the contrary, it stands squarely on the basis of
individual beliefs. I criticize Marxism and Marxists because their
"scientific" claims to the study of history, society and economics are
bogus. And in the name of these scientific claims Marx's followers committed
unspeakable crimes against humanity. ESB

Eva Balogh wrote:

>         First and foremost I have been warning people for a long time that
> not taking Torgyan seriously is a mistake. Calling him a clown and laugh at
> his antics are shortsighted. So, let's not talk about "nuttiness" in
> connection with Torgyan. "Dangerous" would be a much more apt description.

Yes, but.

It is clear that the populist 'policies' preached by Torgyan are attractive
to a significant segment of the Hungarian populace.

It is also clear, however, that there are many people who are attracted by
his policies but repulsed by his personal record.  (Those not attracted to
his 'policies' tend to find him unattractive too, as a rule.)  Apart from
a minority of the populace, he is not considered Prime Minister material.
Hence, it remains to be seen how effective he really is as a political leader
and how many votes he will gain for his party.

But Eva is right: he has to be taken seriously and has to be taken on
seriously by his political opponents.

George Antony

At 08:33 AM 4/30/97 -0400, Joe Szala wrote:
>At 01:38 PM 4/29/97 +1000, George Antony wrote:
>
><snip>
>>Compared to these guys anyone boasting about being a missionary in Hungary
>>in the late 1980s is a bloody wanker.
>
>You make it sound as if masturbation is a bad thing.  It is not.
>
>The way I look at it, Kristof's problem, if he has one, is that he's not
>wanking enough.  If he did, he'd have a better grip on "existing reality".
>But, that's his shortcoming.

It is the learning of all these new words that makes this group so valuable
to me...;-)

Gabor D. Farkas

Peter I. Hidas wrote:
>
> At 8:18 AM -0400 4/30/97, Joe Szalai wrote:
> >At 07:35 PM 4/29/97 -0400, Peter Hidas wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >>Hungary was attacked in 1849...Poland...Sweden...Alexander I marched with
> >>his troops all the way to Paris; not a particularly defensive action. The
> >>Danubian Principalities (present day Romania) was attacked several times by
> >>Russia...The list can be made longer.
> >
> >Fair enough, Peter.  Since we're talking about the prowess of big powers,
> >do you know how many countries in Latin America have NOT experienced US
> >military intervention.  Do you know how many have experienced intervention
> >more than once?
> >
> >Joe Szalai
>
> I thought we were discussing the importance of Hungary joining NATO. If
> that is the case I do not see the relevance of US policies in South
> America. When did the US attack Hungary?

Unfortunately, only by bombers, never by ground troups.

In fact, many Hungarians would be
> happy to see a little American "occupation". We were certainly hoping for
> it in 1945.

HmHm, comrade! ;-)
MKH

Gabor Fencsik wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, Joe Szalai wrote:
>
> > Religion is just so much piffle.  I have no use for it.  Mind you, I
> > believe in freedom of religion.  I also believe I have a right to express
> > my thoughts on the topic.  Religion and religious people do not agree with
> > me.  Does that make me intolerant?
>
> It does not make you intolerant.

Disagree, but not keen discussing it.

 It does make you come across sounding
> like a jerk though, if you forgive me saying so.
>
> To be more precise: I don't think tolerance itself is a supreme virtue.

It is a primary and supreme virtue. Absolute prerequisite of humane
(co-)existence. But we would have to define tolerance. For me it is
accepting the other as he/she is.

> Respecting the dignity of others is.

OH, YES.

Religion is one of those things that
> go the the very center of people's existence -- like family, ethnicity, or
> sexual identity.  Therefore it must be treated with special care.  If I may
> suggest a Gedankenexperiment, let's try out your sentence with a few minor
> twists:
>
> [Specimen #1] "Religion and religious people do not agree with me.
> Does that make me intolerant?"
>
> [Specimen #2] "Homosexuality and homosexuals give me the creeps.
> Does that make me intolerant?"
>
> I trust you can come up with other variants.  In each of these cases
> the (putative) speaker may be stating a fact.  He may be perfectly
> within his right in stating it, and he may even have perfectly sensible
> reasons of his own for feeling this way.  But if the speaker is someone
> who believes in showing a decent respect for the dignity of others, then
> he would keep his opinion to himself.  Or share it, if he must, with a
> small circle of his very best drinking buddies.  If you catch my drift...

This wasn4t that bad, was it?
MKH

Janos Zsargo wrote:
>
> E.Balogh wrote:
>
> >        I am also sure that you would do a good deed if you decided to
> >subscribe because there seems to be a frantic attempt at getting more
> >subscriptions by offering advantageous rates plus some older issues as
> >bonus. I just wish that more people would read these magazines. Then perhaps
> >we wouldn't have so many misinformed people about our past. By the way, I
> >certainly will subscribe and urge everybody who can read Hungarian to follow
> >my *sterling* (;)) example. You can do that by either writing to Rubicon,
> >1135 Budapest, Szent Laszlo ut 46, fszt. 13 or by faxing or telephoning them
> >at 36+1+403-5477.
>
> Thank you for the information. I will try to subscribe.
>
> J.Zs
Eva, I couldn4t follow back the thread. What is this?
MKH