Dear Peter,

Thanks for the re-posting of the message Thanksgiving message. I do not
 remembergetting it the first time.

However, meanings of holidays change over time. For example: the true meaning
of Christmas is Roman Saturnalia.... Easter was originally the time for giving
praise to the sun and the rebirth/force/life of nature.

Therefore, taking a god out of Thanksgiving and still being thankful for
 family,friends and food seems quite in the spirit of things. People who do not
 believe in a god can be just as appreciative of the life and goodness around
 them as godworshippers.

Thanks,
Mark

At 09:44 PM 11/25/96 GMT, Agnes Heringer wrote:

<snip>
>>>Thanksgiving is the only non-sectarian holiday.  2 years ago, one of
>the reform rabbis in Toronto, Jordan Pearlson, had an editorial in the
>Toronto Star.  He encouraged everybody to celebrate Thanksgiving, to
>participate in this beatiful Canadian (ours was in October) holiday.  And
>Eva, EVERYBODY has something to be thankful of, even if we have temporary
>hardships or great difficulties.  Youd don't have to be religious.  You
>can give thanks to Mother Nature, or to your own god you created for
>yourself.

Thanksgiving may be a non-sectarian holiday but it's still a religious day.
Mother Nature does not require such days.  I live in rural Ontario and I'm
surranded by hundreds of thousands of acres of prime agricultural land.  The
Christian farmers (and yes, they are Christian!) around here are still
subduing the land with tons of chemicals.  And once a year, after raping and
killing the soil, they give thanks to god for the bounty.  Such hypocrisy!!!

Joe Szalai

Archive-name: hungarian/pointer
Soc-culture-magyar-archive-name: pointer
Bit-listserv-hungary-archive-name: pointer
Version: 0.90 (beta)
Posting-Frequency: monthly
Last-modified: 1995/11/21
URL: http://hix.mit.edu/hungarian-faq/hungarian-faq-pointer

 This document summarizes network-related resources of Hungarian
interest, which are accessible via email. Some of the most readily
available sources of information can be found in the archives of
periodical information postings to Usenet; these documents are commonly
known as FAQs (from Frequently Asked/Answered Questions). Knowing the
name of the file you can retrieve it by sending email to
 with the command "send
usenet/news.answers/<ARCHIVE-NAME>" in the message (without the quotes,
and with substituting the actual name for <ARCHIVE-NAME> in the pattern
shown above) - for example, to get the document described below, use

 send usenet/news.answers/hungarian-faq

 To learn more about the RTFM server just send the command "help" to it
- it will provide step-by-step intstructions on how to use the
archives, on retrieving indexes and so on.

 "Hungarian electronic resources FAQ" is a comprehensive collection
dealing with email, FTP, WWW and other Internet tools; its archive name
is 'hungarian-faq' (and the mail-server command to get it is shown in
the example above).
 If you only have direct access to email then, in order to use the
other tools, you'll need the methods described in "Accessing The
Internet By E-Mail" (Archive-name:
internet-services/access-via-email).
 To get a general introduction to Usenet (with some guides to Internet
as well - and explanation of how they are different, too) see "Welcome
to news.newusers.questions!" (Archive-name: news-newusers-intro).
 For a guide to finding someone's e-mail addresses, see the "FAQ: How
to find people's E-mail addresses" (Archive-name: finding-addresses).
Do notice that it's usually inappropriate to send such blanket requests
to mailing lists; the search tools available give much better chance to
locate addresses sought than posted queries in any case!
 An overview of commercial on-line services in Hungary is available by
John Horvath >
(Archive-name: hungarian/comm-providers).

 The hungarian-faq describes several email lists related to Hungary;
only a brief summary is shown here. Please keep in mind that
subscription requests (and other administrative communications) should
be directed to the server address, NOT to the lists themselves.

Server: 
 List:  (the HUNGARY LISTSERV list)

Server: 
 List: HOL (Hungary Online)

Server: 
 List: hungary-report

Server: 
 Lists: OMRI-L (Open Media Research Institute Daily Digest)
        MIDEUR-L (Middle European discussion list)

Server: 
 List: cet-online (Central Europe Today On-Line; email )

Server: 
 List: CERRO-L (Central European Regional Research Organization)

Server: email to  (Hollosi Information Exchange)
 Lists: HIX is a collection of several separate lists, including
  - MOZAIK, a collection of news items in English
  - various discussion forums in Hungarian language
  - SCM and HUNGROUPS, which are email-accessible archives of the Usenet
    newsgroup soc.culture.magyar and the hun.* national hierarchy,
    respectively; to get a directory listing of these archives (as well
    as that of other HIX lists), send email to  with
    "arch" in the 'Subject:' line. Note that the SENDDOC utility takes
    its parameter from the 'Subject:' of the message (unlike many other
    servers, like the ones described previously, which use the body)!

 Note that this document is available on the
 <http://hix.mit.edu/hungarian-faq/>; homepage for the "Hungarian
electronic resources FAQ" at the HIX WWW-server.
 The latter also provides access for the full FAQ via
 'finger ', and for this brief pointer you are
reading via 'finger ' (notice that you
will likely need to redirect the output to a pager or a file in order
to read it). The Usenet archive name for this document is
 hungarian/pointer .

--
 Zoli , keeper of <http://hix.mit.edu/hungarian-faq/>;
 <'finger '>
 NOTE: spamsters and bulk emailers see 'X-Policy*:' in the
header for the charges to be imposed for net abuse!

At 04:17 PM 11/25/96 -0500, you wrote:

>And if we are on this subject how would you solve the latest war criminials
>in Serbia,Bosznia,Croatia?
>Andy.>
>
>

I would arrest them and bring them to trial.

Charles

At 12:39 PM 11/25/96 +0000, Eva Durant wrote:
>I'm only the messenger, so please keep all abuse
>to yourselves! -
>
>In HVG (09/nov) There is an interview with Fejto Ferenc,
>a historian who lives in France since 1938. He had given a
>lecture in the rooms of the French Senate, in a two-
>day international colloquium, supported by Chirac and Goncz.
>
>The gist of his opinion - he says, supported by new
>evidence from so far un-researched sources - is
>"understanding, but not forgiving" for Kadar's actions.

        I read it also. The upshot of it is that according to Fejto Kadar
didn't go to the Soviet Union on his own volition but was forced to. The
Hungarian historians who work on 1956 claim that Fejto is wrong and there is
documentary evidence to back it up. I would have to study the background a
little more thoroughly to pass final judgment on the controversy, but on the
basis of the interview in HVG I am skeptical concerning Ferenc Fejto's new
interpretation of Kadar's role.

        Eva Balogh

In article >,  (aheringer)
writes:

> EVERYBODY has something to be thankful of, even if we have temporary
>hardships or great difficulties.  Youd don't have to be religious.  You
>can give thanks to Mother Nature, or to your own god you created for
>yourself.
>
>Agnes
>
>

Just think, Agnes -- Eva D. and her family will bow their heads and offer
up a prayer to Marx before carving the turkey. I would pay admission to
watch that particular Thanksgiving celebration.
Sam Stowe

"Tourism probably changed our culture
as much as anything did. To attract tourists
you don't necessarily give them the true
history. Sometimes you have to compromise
and make those little tomahawks and
set a chief up on the street."
-- Joyce Dugan, Principal Chief of the
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation

>To All those who seem to forget or want to ignore the truth. I hereby
>enclose the verbatum decleration of Thanksgiving. It may behhove all to
>read it at least once.
>Peter Soltesz
>
>THE FIRST THANKSGIVING PROCLAMATION - JUNE 20, 1676:
>
>     // The Holy God having by a long and Continual Series
>of his Afflictive dispensations in and by the present Warr
>with the Heathen Natives of this land, written and brought
>to pass bitter things against his own Covenant people in this
>wilderness, yet so that we evidently discern that in the midst
>of his judgements he hath remembered mercy, having remembered
>his Footstool in the day of his sore displeasure against us for
>our sins, with many singular Intimations of his Fatherly Compassion,
>and regard; reserving many of our Towns from Desolation Threatened,
>and attempted by the Enemy, and giving us especially of late with
>many of our Confederates many signal Advantages against them,
>without such Disadvantage to ourselves as formerly we have been
>sensible of, if it be the Lord/s mercy that we are not consumed,
>It certainly bespeaks our positive Thankfulness, when our Enemies
>are in any measure disappointed or destroyed; and fearing the
>Lord should take notice under so many Intimations of his
>returning mercy, we should be found an Insensible people, as
>not standing before Him with Thanksgiving, as well as lading
>him with our Complaints in the time of pressing Afflictions:
>
>     The Council has thought meet to appoint and set apart the
>29th day of this instant June, as a day of Solemn Thanksgiving
>and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favour, many
>Particulars of which mercy might be Instanced, but we doubt not
>those who are sensible of God/s Afflictions, have been as diligent
>to espy him returning to us; and that the Lord may behold us as
>a People offering Praise and thereby glorifying Him; the Council
>doth commend it to the Respective Ministers, Elders and people
>of this Jurisdiction; Solemnly and seriously to keep the same
>Beseeching that being perswaded by the mercies of God we may all,
>even this whole people offer up our bodies and soulds as a
>living and acceptable Service unto God by Jesus Christ. //
>
>------------------------------------
>
>The First Thanksgiving Proclamation (June 20, 1676)
>
>On June 20, 1676, the governing council of Charlestown,
>Massachusetts, held a meeting to determine how best to express
>thanks for the good fortune that had seen their community
>securely established. By unamimous vote they instructed
>Edward Rawson, the clerk, to proclaim June 29 as a day of
>thanksgiving, our first. That proclamation is reproduced here
>in the same language and spelling as the original.
>
>------------------------------------
><end>
>
>Yuppi!

On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Marina E. Pflieger wrote:
> Oy....here we go again.....Reverend Soltesz, you ought to look for another
> flock
> of sheep to minister to. We are beyond help....we are the "black" sheep of
> the
> Internet. Baa, baa black sheep etc.,
<<<<<<
Well at least you admit it. The trouble is that you have fallen into the
evil abyss from which you cannot even percive what is correct and the truth.
Peter

On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Marina E. Pflieger wrote:
<<SNIP>>
> Oy, oy......another one! Kindly crawl back under the rock you came from....
> Maybe you and the good Reverend Soltesz could comiserate somewhere
> out there near Plymouth Rock and leave us to our pagan ways of celebrating
> Thanksgiving. Wheeeeeeeee........
>
You said it Marina -- you ARE Pagan. Besides it looks like you have been
embibing eraly!
Peter

Marina:
>
> I got ticked off of the Rev.Soltesz and creepy crawly Szekely after
> reading their "articles" about Thanksgiving. Real Holy men....
> ....I can't stand it when mere mortals stand on a hill and pontificate.
>
> Regards,
> Marina
>
You sound really sick Madame. I feel sorry for you.
Still I wish you happy Thanksgiving so that you may
experience the real meaning of this very Christian
holiday.

I guess, anyway, that your and your feller's real
problem is that you have to live in a country of
Christian values. Just read the President's Victory
Speech over again. You may get a picture of the real
America afterall. The America of strong Christian
values, which fact must be addressed even by the
President if he is willing to hold his office.

I also would like to note that I used sign my letters
and you would be overly foolish (or malicious??) to
interchange my postings with that of Mr "iszekely@..."
whatever, about whom I have no idea who he is.

So give yourself a break and enjoy your turkey
without malice.
                                           Sz. Zoli

At 11:14 PM 11/25/96 +0100, Magda Zimanyi wrote:

>Dear Eva Balogh and listmembers, Eva Balogh wrote a few days ago:
>
>EB> Magda,
>EB>         OK. Let me try again:
>
>Well, let us try again.  But, if you permit I shall begin with the
>beginning.

        If you permit me, I shall start at the end:

>And one more closing remark: please, take into consideration that
>people living in Hungary are using English as a second language.
>Maybe, we can express our thoughts not so clearly as somebody with a
>Ph.D. in philosophy and whose mother tongue is English. Please, be
>charitable with us.

        I have the greatest admiration for you and all those who learned
English so well without living in an English-speaking country! I am sure
that I would have never able to do it.

        But let's continue. Orban and the middle.

>Well, if FIDESz is not an extreme rightist party, then IMHO possibly
>there is some place for FIDESz in -- or at least near to -- the middle.

        Less and less so. More and more the FIDESZ is trying to outdo the
nationalism of the right and I consider that a very bad sign. I am also
unhappy about another piece of news: very harsh criticism of the market
economy. I consider both of these attitudes signs of rightist sentiments.

>Sorry, Magda said nothing of the kind.  IMHO the SZDSZ leaders have
>every right and reason to be upset. However, it is not the best method
>to simply call Orban bad names as they did, calling his statement
>"aljas es gyalazatos" or "felhaborito, keptelen hazugsag" ["perfidious
>and disgraceful" and "outrageous and absurd lie"] and demanding that
>Orban should apologize.  It is very unusual in political life to use
>such strong words.

        Maybe, but the accusation is pretty horrendous also. Let's assume
that I am an SZDSZ politician today and my political opponent tells me that
my party's ideology is the same as the ideology of those who condemned me to
death, later commuted to life. I think I would have every reason to be
mighty upset. As for Laszlo Gy. Toth's writing, you mustn't forget that he
is a *former* SZDSZ member, most likely with an ax to grind. And, by the
way, although the Magyar Nemzet is certainly not a right-wing paper but not
a liberal-socialist paper either.

>The question is still open why did SzDSz enter the coalition in 94?

>As far as the "incredible pressure" and the "ardent wish" is
>considered, I would call this -- sit venia verbo -- a legend.
>Pressure of the press?  The press was -- and still is -- SzDSz
>dominated and MSzP has the second strongest influence on the press.
>So if the press pressed SzDSZ then it was mostly their own pressure.

        There was definitely a huge pressure on the SZDSZ in the media. I
still have those old papers and I could quote reams and reams of articles,
claiming that the coalition was the only way to govern the country. You say
that the SZDSZ has the strongest influence on the press and therefore "if
the press pressed the SZDSZ then it was mostly their own pressure." I don't
think that you could equate the journalists with SZDSZ sympathies, or even
with SZDSZ party membership with the party itself. Moreover, there is a
difference between pressure behind the scenes and pressure which takes place
in public, in the media.

>And the polls?  It is highly unusual after a general election to say
>that the wish of the population is better reflected in the polls than
>in the outcome of the elections.

        What are you suggesting here? That the polls were fradulant? The
Hungarian polls, on the whole, are quite accurate and the former governing
parties made a huge mistake when they didn't quite believe them.

>3) About the relation of SzDSz to the '56 revolution

>What I found somewhat really strange is that the main message of SzDSz
>on the 40th anniversary was summarized in
>
>-- nobody should monopolize the heritage of '56
>-- the heritage of '56 should not be used for political purposes
>
>i. e. two negative statements, saying only what  should *not* be
>done with the heritage of '56.

        It has been almost three years that I have been reading Hungarian
political discussions on the Internet and unfortunately since 1989-1990 1956
has become a political football. I'm afraid that my own perception is that
it is mostly the right--which after all wasn't an important component of the
revolution--which is making the biggest noise about who has the right to
claim that revolution. The most outrageous comments are made about some of
the participants. Their favorite target is the president of the republic,
Arpad Goncz, but there are scores and scores of active participants who paid
with their lives or who suffered years of captivity but who--according to
these super-patriots--don't deserve a place of honor in the annals of
Hungarian history.


>MZ> One could have expected more positive statements from a real successor.

        Maybe but given the accusations of the kind Viktor Orban himself
levelled against them lately, I am not surprised that they are on the
defensive. The Hungarian rightwingers (and here I am not talking about Orban
but mostly the ones I encounter on the Internet) don't have compunctions:
Goncz becomes an informer in jail, Bela Kiraly a nazi turned communist,
myself a DISZ secretary, a reform communist, an AVH informer. They are not
choosy in their methods! At the end, you feel that you have to defend your
own actions which you until now considered honorable and decent. They are a
sorry lot, I'm afraid.

        Finally, let's talk about an issue on which obviously we don't
agree: the SZDSZ's identity. I am afraid we will not be able to smooth over
our differences of interpretation. To me "whatever this means" in that
particular sentence meant that the SZDSZ doesn't really have an identity.
Magda, on the other hand, claims that it was simply my neglecting to mention
that identity which made her include that remark. To me that is a forced and
unnatural interpretation. Perhaps it is our differing political beliefs
which give rise to different interpretations of this sort. I bet that Magda
doesn't like the SZDSZ while I do. Or at least I used to. But there isn't
too many other political groupings where I would feel comfortable. I
certainly wouldn't feel comfortable with a political party which advocates a
nationalist, particular Hungarian path, and which attacks the market
economy. To me that road is a dead end which will not take us to Europe.

        Eva Balogh

At 05:31 PM 11/25/96 +0100, Magda Zimanyi wrote:

>Eva, IMHO we agree in many things.

        This is wonderful because, after all, these discussions are supposed
to lead somewhere: to learn something from each other and to be also ready
to change our perceptions of certain aspects of history and politics.
Unfortunately, most of the time, there is no consensus: mindenki fujja a
maga notajat!--to use a Hungarain expression.


>Unfortunately there are some points where our memories differ.
>
>I am quite sure by my own experience that there was much pressure used
>to force people to enter the party before the fifties, especially
>before '48, the "unification" the communist party and the Social
>Democrats.  You as a historian can quite sure check the sources, I can
>only recall my childhood memories.

        I don't have a book on hand which makes any reference to this
question but I am still doubtful simply because the parties jelously guarded
their share of the power. Occasionally, intraparty affairs bordered on the
ridiculous. For example, movie theaters were allotted to different parties:
X movie theater "belonged" to the smallholders, Y to the communists, and X
to the social democrats!! The only reference I found on the B-list that
because the minister of each ministry was, in the final analysis,
responsible who will stay and who will go, the outcome much depended on to
what party the minister belonged.

>EB> Do you claim that in
>EB> May 1945 people were actually threatened to join the communist party?
>
>By no means. In May 1945 some people could enter the party by
>conviction, or because they thought it will be good for their career.
>E. g. many peasants entered the party who became landowners by the
>"foldreform". I don't think force was used by that time.
>
>EB> I know from my studies and my readings that no one forced
>EB>  anyone to become a communist party member in  1945.
>
>Peter Hidas  wrote:
>
>PH> People in Hungary who joined the communist party (MKP) in 1945 had
>PH> many options. One could join the social democrats, the
>PH> smallholders etc. These parties also distributed jobs, provided
>PH> protection, etc.

        I did a bit of research on numbers. As I mentioned earlier by
October 1945 there were half a million members of the Communist party; the
Social Democrats had approximately 350-400,000 members; and the Smallholders
900,000. At the municipal elections in October 1945, in Budapest, where 90
percent of the eligible voters voted, the Smallholders had a small absolute
majority: 50.54%, *but* the Communists and the Social Democrats together
garnered 42.76% of the votes. That is a very sizable vote for the left. At
the national elections in November 1945 again the participation was very
high: 92.4% of the eligible voters voted. Altogether 4,730,409 individuals.
The Smallholders received 57.03%, the Social Democrats %17.41 and the
Communists, 16.95%. Or, 802,122 people voted for the Communists, 2,697,508
for the Smallholders and 823,314 for the Social Democrats. By 1947 the
elections were rigged--hard to tell how many people voted twice but there
are estimates of 100-200,000. The Communists received 1,113,050 votes; that
is 460,000 more than two years earlier. But, in spite of the fact that the
Communist party became the largest party (22.3%) the opposition parties plus
the Smallholders still had almost 55% of the votes. As for the fate of the
Social Democratic party it was only from January 1948 that tens of thousands
of Social Democrats left the party and moved over to the communists. It was
during the summer of 1948 that the two parties united as received a new
name: Magyar Dolgozok Partja.

        Between September 1948 and March 1949 the communists actually
thinned out the ranks of the MDP. Three hundred thousand members were
dismissed from the united party, mostly the right-wing social democrats were
the victims.

        The above might help us to determine whether there was any pressure
to join the party after 1945. My tentative answer is that it is unlikely and
I am basing this opinion on the following: If the Communists had a members
of 500,000 in October 1945 and the Social Democrats between 350-400,000 that
would amount to approximately 1 million members, but in 1948-49 they
expelled about 300,000. After 1950 there was definite pressure to join but
the membership didn't exceed even in the first half of the 1950s 1 million
members. A mass acceptance of new members during the period between 1946 and
1948 would have swelled the ranks of party members way beyond the 1 million
mark.

        I hope the above helps a bit.

        Eva Balogh

I continue the survey of the President's Victory Speech
which was given on the night of the last election. I
picked up the statements of the President which deal with
the role of God Almighty in the American history, and the
President's own personal fate. I do it in order to make it
clear, that the American Christianity is so deeply rooted
in the way people think in this country that even the
President has to address publicly the role the Almighty
God plays in America.

And also, I do it in order to wish you all happy
Thanksgiving, and to offer my gift of packing the
President's God-related ideas on this specific occasion
as food for your own thought.

Cheer up, the life is short.
                                                  Sz. Zoli

**********************************************************

President William Jefferson Clinton is speaking:
(Victory Speech on election night)
Part 2

                  On a purely personal note, I must thank my pastor, Rex
                  Horn, who prayed with me before I came out here
                  tonight, and all the ministers and people of God who
                  prayed for me and with me over these last four years.

Are you surprised? You should not! Bill Clinton prayed
to God for the success. He asked the Almighty to help
him in his ways. He did not only prayed to God but he
also had his pastor, Mr Horn pray for him. And who are
these misterious 'people of God'? Undoubtedly, the
people of God are the Christians of America, many of
whom prayed for the President.


                  There were a few especially, and they know who they
                  are, who came to the White House time after time, in
                  good times and bad. When the times were bad, they
                  reminded me that God gave Saint Paul a thorn in his
                  flesh so he would not become exalted in his own eyes.

The President had some bad times, as he admits. And what
happened to him in his bad times? Well, 'people of God'
came to him reminding him of the thorn in the flesh. Does
the President of the United States have thorn in his
flesh? He may have some! And we all know this. He was
unfaithful to his wife. He may have been unfaithful to
his own electorate and to God also. But lo, he is coming
back in lowliness! He is not exalted in his own eyes. He
knows his thorns, as God knows them also.


                  When the times were good, they reminded me that
                  humility is always in order in the presidency, for in
                  this life we see through a glass darkly and we cannot
                  know the whole truth of our circumstances or the
                  motives of those who oppose us.

Humility. The President needed this thing so badly. And
he was rewarded. He got the gift of humility so that he
could see through the dark glass. This kind of ability
of looking through the dark glass is so essential for
the presidency, and Clinton realized that humility is
the gift of God for him so that he may be able to
acquire this ability. As you see, even the small things
are coming from God for the President, as he very
clearly admits here.


                  I thank them all for
                  bringing me closer to God and to the eternal wisdom
                  without which a president cannot serve.

Closer to God? What does it mean? The President explained
what it means for him. But what does it mean to you? Are
you close to God? Do you share in the 'eternal wisdom' he
is talking about? Where is this eternal wisdom coming
from? And why is it so important for the President, as
he claims, that he could not serve without it? Is it also
important to you? Do you belong to the overwhelming
majority in this country for whom the wisdom of God is
also important? If not, do you want to belong to this
majority? Are you going to accept that the people of God,
as the President called them, are not extreme, are not
stupid uneducated folks, but actually are enlightened by
God's eternal wisdom? Look, the President is one of them.
He tries to get closer to this wisdom. Why would not you?

On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Marina E. Pflieger wrote:

<<SNIP>>
> Agnes, you are my woman (as in "you'r my man..) I like what you have written!
>
> I got ticked off of the Rev.Soltesz and creepy crawly Szekely after
> reading their "articles" about Thanksgiving. Real Holy men....
> ....I can't stand it when mere mortals stand on a hill and pontificate.


We are NOT pontificating at all. We are stating actual FACTS! If you
cannot understand that in your drunken state then sober up! Smell the
flowers and figure out  that THANKGIVING is a thanks to GOD!

Just because you are a Heathen god less pagan please do not take the
original meaning away and twist it to your benefit.