[net.religion] Reagan's trip

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/04/85)

Believe it or not, I'm inclined to go against Bill Peter and fellow Jews in
general and agree with (what?) Wingate and Reagan.  The Germans who were
duped into following down the path of Nazism alongside Hitler and his goons
were indeed victims.  Of course, there are varying degrees to which a victim
may suffer, and being forced to serve in the army, or even having been
swayed by vicious propaganda to go along with the Nazis, cannot be compared
to being summarily rounded up and slaughtered.  If there are people who
actually think that the Nazi atrocities can be pinned on the German people
as a whole, they are just as racist as the Nazis themselves.  There were
Frenchmen who didn't especially like Jews.  And the Poles certainly weren't
reticent about turning in Jews once the Nazis took over.  But to blame *any*
entire race of people as a whole for such action is ridiculous.  A Hitler could
just as easily have arisen in France, or Poland, or England, or America.
And one may still do so.  The anti-Semitism that was part and parcel of
Christian (no quotes) teaching for thousands of years is well ingrained in
the mindsets of millions.  And a Hitler could just as easily sprout up
again, anywhere, and exploit that.  And that anti-Semitism is but a subset of
a mindset of intolerance that permeates nationalistic and religionistic
thought.  From which Jews themselves are not immune.

Not that my agreement with Wingate and Reagan is wholehearted.  Both
have shown remarkably cold insensitivity, despite their apparent sincerity.
Something that never sunk in to Charley is that his actions contradicted
his statements.  He was proud to state his and his church's position on
a number of issues.  But his actions consisted of jokes about Jew-baiting,
slanted comments about homosexuality, assumptions that anyone who defends
blacks must BE black (remember Michael Ellis), and support of manipulative
proselytizing as "OK".  All of which Charley saw as non-contradictory to his
stated positions.  I never doubted Charley's sincerity about his positions. 
(I hope that was clear.)  I was only trying to point out that if he was
truly sincere, he'd be willing to admit that hundreds of years of Christian
doctrine had taken its toll on the way he was taught and on the mindset that
is still present in many people in many forms.  And the prejudices that evince
themselves were not something to deny with a flurry of articles containing
random statistics for the purpose of deriding someone else, but rather
something to admit to and work on.  If one is truly sincere...
-- 
"If you offend everybody, you're doing a good job." --David Steinberg on the
							subject of satire
	Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr