nlt@duke.UUCP (N. L. Tinkham) (04/03/85)
[*] First, some specific comments: 1) alice!jj writes: > If you would have commented > "I didn't think anyone would take this twit seriously, but since they > have, here's what I think about him" I would credit that statement, > BUT since you defend your silence rather than your religion, I > feel otherwise. In addition to my "defense of silence" I have posted two articles of the sort you mention ("I didn't think anyone would take this twit seriously, but since they have, here's what I think about [his beliefs]") -- one ("Re: Identity") a critique of his theological and historical claims, the other ("In response to Rosen, Bellovin, Maroney, and others") a statement that the ethics implied by his beliefs are contrary to the ethics of Christianity. So I think by now it should be clear what I think about the actual content of Black's articles. 2) Laura Creighton writes: > Lots of Christians were quick to denounce Mormons as not being Christians -- > lots of Christians were quick to denounce homosexuals as not being > Christians as long as they felt that homosexuality was not a sin). > It was clearly believed that to have these certain beliefs associated with > Christianity was vile and odious to many Christians. SO WHERE IS THE EQUAL > AMOUNT OF CONDEMNATION OF IDENTITY CHRISTIANITY BY CHRISTIANS? I am *still* > waiting.... > > i can't help but think that there are Christians out there who think that > homosexuals and Mormons are very dangerous threats and that the Identity > Christians are not. I know, this belief is very hard to take seriously, > but I cannot account for the silence on this issue at the same time as > Mormons and homosexuals are subject to renunciation by Christians. While I am still not impressed by the "absolute" argument from silence ("Whenever an article is posted to net.religion, all net.religion readers who do not explicitly state disagreement with the article can be assumed to agree with it"), the above "relative" argument from silence makes a worthwhile point. It is troublesome that homosexuality and Mormon beliefs would receive a more rapid denunciation from "lots of Christians" than Identity. I do not know why this is the case. (I leave that defense to those who denounced homosexuality and/or the Mormons but not Identity.) 3) Rich Rosen writes: >> [Tinkham:] >> Should a group like that ever begin to come to power in this country, >> I would use any moral means at my disposal to oppose them. > > [Rosen:] > Will you act only if and when they "ever begin to come to power"? Are you > only willing to act when it's too late? Or will you speak up now? Having > learned a lesson of history from those who didn't... Agreed, "begin to come to power" was too strong a phrase to use. I didn't mean we should wait until we've stumbled into a dictatorship (or even a repressive democracy) before taking any action. I meant to draw a distinction between beliefs and actions: when prejudices are acted upon, they hurt people, and at that point the oppressors must be opposed. Even the Identity people and similar groups have a right to freedom of religion and speech, but when their beliefs are acted out in a manner which harms others, political and legal action is called for. Now, some general comments: Rich and others have made the point that evil actions begin with evil thoughts, and it is better to oppose evil while it is still in the mind than to wait until atrocities have been committed and then try to repair the damage. I thought I would never concede a point to Rich [ :-) !], but I have been persuaded that I should listen more carefully to speakers for Identity and similar groups because 1) they are, possibly, not as small a minority as I had thought (I still have to verify that), 2) if acted upon, their beliefs will, apparently, bring serious harm to others, and 3) if acted upon, their beliefs will bring harm to others in the name of Christ. #2 bothers me as a citizen and a moral person. #3 bothers me as a Christian. Christ is recorded as having said (quoting Isaiah): "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. He sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are downtrodden, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord." This "calling" to aid the poor and the oppressed is a central part of the teaching of Christ, whom we as Christians claim to follow. There is no room in Christianity for participation in the oppression of Jews or any other innocent minority group. We who are called Christians must be aware of what is being taught and done in the name of Christ. Apparently there is enough being done in the church which is contrary to the spirit of Christ that it takes article upon article to convince outside observers that we are not in principle immoral people. I am not sure how to correct this -- I would not want to see a system of church discipline which is as oppressive as the evils it is trying to correct. But perhaps there is a need, at the very least, to be more vocal about the wrongs we see. N. L. Tinkham duke!nlt
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/09/85)
> In addition to my "defense of silence" I have posted two articles of the > sort you mention ("I didn't think anyone would take this twit seriously, > but since they have, here's what I think about [his beliefs]") [TINKHAM] Just like they didn't take that German twit seriously. Don't take it as a personal insult when I say some people never learn. A LOT of people never learn. I'd hope that if I failed to see a new Nazism coming along that there'd be someone whose vantage point made it more visible who spoke out loudly. We all fail to learn lessons from history. But once they are pointed out to us, one would think that the learning process would be ameliorated. Hopefully the next time someone like this comes along we won't all be saying "He's just a twit..." > It is troublesome that homosexuality and Mormon beliefs would receive a more > rapid denunciation from "lots of Christians" than Identity. > I do not know why this is the case. (I leave that defense to those who > denounced homosexuality and/or the Mormons but not Identity.) I expect those people to remain silent in the face of any serious questions as usual. Perhaps because it is exactly the same mentality of moral superiority leading one to denounce Mormons, homosexuals, etc., that leads one to ACCEPT Identity Christianity-like notions. > [Rosen:] > Will you act only if and when they "ever begin to come to power"? Are you > only willing to act when it's too late? Or will you speak up now? Having > learned a lesson of history from those who didn't... > Agreed, "begin to come to power" was too strong a phrase to use. I didn't > mean we should wait until we've stumbled into a dictatorship (or even a > repressive democracy) before taking any action. I meant to draw a distinction > between beliefs and actions: when prejudices are acted upon, they hurt > people, and at that point the oppressors must be opposed. Even the Identity > people and similar groups have a right to freedom of religion and speech, but > when their beliefs are acted out in a manner which harms others, political > and legal action is called for. > Rich and others have made the point that evil actions begin with evil > thoughts, and it is better to oppose evil while it is still in the mind > than to wait until atrocities have been committed and then try to repair > the damage. I thought I would never concede a point to Rich [ :-) !], > but I have been persuaded that I should listen more carefully to speakers > for Identity and similar groups because 1) they are, possibly, not > as small a minority as I had thought (I still have to verify that), 2) if > acted upon, their beliefs will, apparently, bring serious harm to others, > and 3) if acted upon, their beliefs will bring harm to others in the name > of Christ. The point is not the difference between actions and thoughts, because we cannot control people's thoughts, though we can influence them to perhaps be more rational. Malicious speech that maligns ethnic or other groups solely for the purpose of spreading hatred based on fabrications, especially by those who claim to be asking "serious questions" and posing as "reasonable people", is the evil here. Because you yourself have shown that you (and others) don't recognize it for what it is at the outset. -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr