nlt@duke.UUCP (N. L. Tinkham) (03/26/85)
[*]
Let me add my voice to those of Jeff Gillette and Charley Wingate:
Silence does *not* necessarily imply consent. I read many, many
articles in this newsgroup expressing positions with which I disagree
and representing religions or groups within my own religion with
views different from my own. Only a few are interesting enough to
me to take the trouble to reply (and to reply to the news and mail
replies which may result from my own article) -- perhaps 1/2 of 1%.
Obviously -- isn't it obvious? -- it should not be inferred that I
agree with the other 99.5% of what is posted to net.religion.
N. L. Tinkham
duke!nltrlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (03/26/85)
> Let me add my voice to those of Jeff Gillette and Charley Wingate: > Silence does *not* necessarily imply consent. I read many, many > articles in this newsgroup expressing positions with which I disagree > and representing religions or groups within my own religion with > views different from my own. Only a few are interesting enough to > me to take the trouble to reply (and to reply to the news and mail > replies which may result from my own article) -- perhaps 1/2 of 1%. > Obviously -- isn't it obvious? -- it should not be inferred that I > agree with the other 99.5% of what is posted to net.religion. > > N. L. Tinkham > duke!nlt In the case of advocation of repression against certain groups of people, derogatory lies repeatedly repeated (a technique made famous by ...), and eradication of personal freedom, I will continue to infer consent from silence. And rightfully so. -- "Which three books would *you* have taken?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (03/27/85)
> From: nlt@duke.UUCP (N. L. Tinkham) > Subject: Inferring consent from silence > Message-ID: <5615@duke.UUCP> > Date: Mon, 25-Mar-85 17:06:29 EST > Let me add my voice to those of Jeff Gillette and Charley Wingate: > Silence does *not* necessarily imply consent. I read many, many > articles in this newsgroup expressing positions with which I disagree > and representing religions or groups within my own religion with > views different from my own. Only a few are interesting enough to > me to take the trouble to reply (and to reply to the news and mail > replies which may result from my own article) -- perhaps 1/2 of 1%. > Obviously -- isn't it obvious? -- it should not be inferred that I > agree with the other 99.5% of what is posted to net.religion. > N. L. Tinkham > duke!nlt This article is representative of several that have appeared recently in net.religion, defending a lack of responses to Don Black. Let me answer this one. People, can you not see the difference between doctrinal disagreements and *evil*? Is even obnoxious atheism the same threat to humanity as Nazism? We don't have to guess what flows from it; there was a gory example not 40 years ago. (Denials of the existence of the Holocaust are, of course, just another example of Goebbels' "Big Lie" technique -- and no, I don't think that I'm smearing someone by chance association.) Ever since the founding of net.religion, there's been a recurrent debate between some who cite the evils of the Inquisition as representative of Christianity, and those who reply that Torquemeda wasn't a real Christian. It's a pointless debate, since neither side will ever convince the other. Now, though, we have someone who's spreading anti-Semitic slander under the banner of Christianity. How many of the active Christians on the net -- even excluding those like hutch who didn't see Black's postings; we all know how unreliable the net can be -- said anything? Just one -- Bob Brown. *Just one Christian had the courage, the decency, the morality to stand up and denounce Black's attitudes as unchristian.* Between 1933 and 1945, a great tragedy took place, with (at the very least) the tacit assent of the people of Germany, Poland, the Ukraine, France, etc. Yes, there were individual acts of courage. The responses of Denmark and Holland are legendary. Just two weeks ago, an entire Dutch village was honored at Yad Vashem (the memorial in Jerusalem to the Holocaust victims) for their individual and collective heroic acts. But by and large, people were silent. (Nor are the Western powers free of guilt; see, for example, "The Abandonment of the Jews", recently published in hardback.) We now have an example of that sort of behavior on the net. There are no Storm Troopers waiting inside your terminals. No Gestapo agents are going to drag you away for replying to Don Black. Let me ask you -- is your silence really justifiable? There is a saying in the Talmud worth repeating: "If not me, who? And if not now, when?" I'll be away from net.religion for a few days; please don't misconstrue any silence on my part. --Steve Bellovin P.S. For those of you who have said that Jews are too sensitive about antisemitism, it's worth noting that *every* Jew (and several non-Jews) with whom I corresponded about Don Black recognized his ideology for what it is. This was before he defined the tenets of Identity "Christianity". As the saying goes, "even paranoids have real enemies". 50 years ago, too many Jews didn't recognize the danger until it was too late. I pray that that mistake is never made again.
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (03/27/85)
> > Let me add my voice to those of Jeff Gillette and Charley Wingate: > > Silence does *not* necessarily imply consent. I read many, many > > articles in this newsgroup expressing positions with which I disagree > > and representing religions or groups within my own religion with > > views different from my own. Only a few are interesting enough to > > me to take the trouble to reply (and to reply to the news and mail > > replies which may result from my own article) -- perhaps 1/2 of 1%. > > Obviously -- isn't it obvious? -- it should not be inferred that I > > agree with the other 99.5% of what is posted to net.religion. > > N. L. Tinkham > I don't know about anyone else, but I often fail to respond to incredibly stupid or hate-filled postings, *especially* when it is obvious that nothing I can say will change the author's views. I'd rather not be assumed to be agreeing with these jerks. > People, can you not see the difference between doctrinal disagreements > and *evil*? Is even obnoxious atheism the same threat to humanity as > Nazism? So nice to hear that you don't think we're quite as evil as Nazis. What did we ever do to you? It's pretty damned amazing to hear someone denouncing the Nazis, while in the same breath, showing the kind of intolerance they were famous for. (Actually, I'm an agnostic, rather than an athiest, but I'm sure you find us every bit as odious.) > > --Steve Bellovin -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Humans are a great goodness. Every fuzzy should have one."- some fuzzy
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (03/30/85)
>>In the case of advocation of repression against certain groups of people, >>derogatory lies repeatedly repeated (a technique made famous by ...), and >>eradication of personal freedom, I will continue to infer consent from >>silence. And rightfully so. [ROSEN] > Allow me to hoist you on your own petard, Rich.... First I have to get out my > list. [Rustling noises] O.K., Rich, I haven't heard you condemn any of the > following actions in a long time: > > (1) Soviet persecution of jews > (2) Soviet persecution of christians > (3) Soviet persecution of almost everyone else :-) > (4) The Ukrainian famine > (5) Turkish repression of armenians > (6) the Pol Pot regime > (7) the government of South Africa > (8) Iranian persecution of Ba'hais > (9) The Invasion and occupation of Cyprus > (10) Starvation in Africa > (11) The Rape of the Sabine Women > . > . > > Do I really have to go on? Rich, I don't seriously believe that you condone > all these things. Why is it necessary that you assume that those of us who > don't see the use of talking with raised voice on every subject are therefore > in concurance with the worst viewpoint expressed? Looks like hypocrisy to > me, Rich; you apply an impossible standard to christians, but you won't > submit to its application to you. 1) I'm glad you don't seriously believe that I condone any of these things. I still believe, from your words and (in)actions, that you do condone (or could care less about) the anti-human side of the Christian spectrum that is growing and taking hold more and more in this country. 2) None of these things listed above is being perpetrated by groups I am in league with or lumped in with by association. If they were, I'd be even more vocal about those things that I as an 'xxxx' were to be held responsible for. Because I'd have a more personal stake, and possibly additional leverage, in generating change. You, sir, see no such responsibility or reason to speak out. Thus, you apparently don't mind Christianity being associated with the movement. The man speaks as part of the American Christian community, reaching into that community for support for his ideas, and getting it! You couldn't care less. Hell, he's not out for your blood, even if your church stands on the sidelines booing Falwell. 3) That you are more interested in "hoisting me from my own petard" than saying something constructive speaks for itself. Your interest is in belittling my position rather than denouncing anti-human activity. While I am trying to find out why the Christian community, which speaks of love for all people, falls silent in the face of bigotry, you turn to "I may be bad, but what about you" excuse making of the shoddiest kind. Your priorities are fucked, Charley. Tell another joke about Jew-baiting on the way out the door. Black will laugh. As will his friends. -- "Does the body rule the mind or does the mind rule the body? I dunno." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
jj@alice.UUCP (03/31/85)
Um, Mr. Charlie Wingate, you have just hoist yourself beyond rlr, I fear. You complain that rlr hasn't decried many other injustices on the net lately. OK, so what? They haven't been offered as THE TRUTH lately, either. Your comment (that he's not complained about SSJ, etc) is quite true. Your extrapolation that he is acquiescing is completly specious, since they haven't been offered as TRVTH... Man Go where? -- TEDDY BEARS NEED SECURITY BLANKETS ONCE IN A WHILE! "... John? Who'd of thought it! ..." (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!alice!jj
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/01/85)
In article <813@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP writes: >> O.K., Rich, I haven't heard you condemn any of the >> following actions in a long time: >> >> (1) Soviet persecution of jews >> (2) Soviet persecution of christians >> (3) Soviet persecution of almost everyone else :-) >> (4) The Ukrainian famine >> (5) Turkish repression of armenians >> (6) the Pol Pot regime >> (7) the government of South Africa >> (8) Iranian persecution of Ba'hais >> (9) The Invasion and occupation of Cyprus >> (10) Starvation in Africa >> (11) The Rape of the Sabine Women >> . >> . >> >> Do I really have to go on? Rich, I don't seriously believe that you condone >> all these things. Why is it necessary that you assume that those of us who >> don't see the use of talking with raised voice on every subject are therefore >> in concurance with the worst viewpoint expressed? Looks like hypocrisy to >> me, Rich; you apply an impossible standard to christians, but you won't >> submit to its application to you. > >1) I'm glad you don't seriously believe that I condone any of these things. > I still believe, from your words and (in)actions, that you do condone > (or could care less about) the anti-human side of the Christian spectrum > that is growing and taking hold more and more in this country. Wishful thinking, Rich; you are projecting what you wish I believed onto me. This discussion continues to demonstrate that you have already decided what I believe. You are obviously lacking in any real knowledge of the various branches of christianity; the fact that you would identify Don Black with protestant, Roman, or Eastern orthodoxy is sufficient demonstration. Some of us have other purposes in this world besides walking around condemning every evil they see. Some of us do things besides flaming at great lengths on subjects we know little about. >2) None of these things listed above is being perpetrated by groups I am > in league with or lumped in with by association. If they were, I'd be > even more vocal about those things that I as an 'xxxx' were to be held > responsible for. Because I'd have a more personal stake, and possibly > additional leverage, in generating change. You, sir, see no such > responsibility or reason to speak out. Thus, you apparently don't mind > Christianity being associated with the movement. The man speaks as part > of the American Christian community, reaching into that community for > support for his ideas, and getting it! You couldn't care less. Hell, > he's not out for your blood, even if your church stands on the sidelines > booing Falwell. How would you know? You don't seem to have any info on my church, why should I believe you on others? I, and the church I belong to, have absolutely no control over sects like Identity. It is not by my choice that they describe themselves as "christians". You've already said that you will not listen when I disavow them. You seem to think that christendom is a nicely well-organized place. It is not. You have already stated that you are not listening, so why should I bother? Those who know my positions (and you either do not or choose to misrepresent them) know that I have no use for the likes of Identity. Besides, Rich, you ARE associated with those listed above; you are a member of the human race. >3) That you are more interested in "hoisting me from my own petard" than > saying something constructive speaks for itself. Your interest is > in belittling my position rather than denouncing anti-human activity. > While I am trying to find out why the Christian community, which speaks > of love for all people, falls silent in the face of bigotry, you turn to > "I may be bad, but what about you" excuse making of the shoddiest kind. > Your priorities are fucked, Charley. Suck thy forked tongue in, O Snake. Who are you attacking now? Your position, as you call it, is as judge of all who would dare post to the net. Those who, for whatever reason, do not leap to your demand to denounce this group or that group are branded as racist, anti-semite, or whatever your favorite epithet is this week. If that is not presumption, then nothing is. There is no contradiction between my statements about Black's errors and about your errors, Rich. You are both wrong, and both deserving of condemnation. When you presume to denounce everyone who, for whatever reason (and you cannot legitimately claim to know the reasons of the silent), does not speak as you demand, you have not a moral leg to stand on. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/04/85)
>>1) I'm glad you don't seriously believe that I condone any of these things. >> I still believe, from your words and (in)actions, that you do condone >> (or could care less about) the anti-human side of the Christian spectrum >> that is growing and taking hold more and more in this country. > Wishful thinking, Rich; you are projecting what you wish I believed onto me. > This discussion continues to demonstrate that you have already decided what > I believe. You are obviously lacking in any real knowledge of the various > branches of christianity; the fact that you would identify Don Black with > protestant, Roman, or Eastern orthodoxy is sufficient demonstration. Some > of us have other purposes in this world besides walking around condemning > every evil they see. Some of us do things besides flaming at great lengths > on subjects we know little about. But you're apparently not among them. What a big incredible baby! Do you honestly think that rambling on about "you know nothing about the various forms of Christianity" is meaningful? Do you really think it makes a point? Is the point that I'm supposedly in error for associating you and your well-documented anti-xxxx (where xxxx has included Jews, blacks, and homo- sexuals in articles posted on this net!) because I'm "wrong" in lumping you in with other Christian labels? Congratulations, Charley, you've proved just the opposite: your own claims of being part of some "liberal Christian wing" are contradicted by your own actions, not by my "wishful thinking". When Black asserts "but I am for freedom" out of only one side of his mouth (need I repeat what comes out of the other?), it is no different from you proclaiming "how dare you associate such things with completely different labels?" to cover your own ass. The fact that you would proclaim your association with some "other" Christian classification means squat. Your actions say more. >>2) None of these things listed above is being perpetrated by groups I am >> in league with or lumped in with by association. If they were, I'd be >> even more vocal about those things that I as an 'xxxx' were to be held >> responsible for. Because I'd have a more personal stake, and possibly >> additional leverage, in generating change. You, sir, see no such >> responsibility or reason to speak out. Thus, you apparently don't mind >> Christianity being associated with the movement. The man speaks as part >> of the American Christian community, reaching into that community for >> support for his ideas, and getting it! You couldn't care less. Hell, >> he's not out for your blood, even if your church stands on the sidelines >> booing Falwell. > How would you know? You don't seem to have any info on my church, why > should I believe you on others? I, and the church I belong to, have > absolutely no control over sects like Identity. It is not by my choice that > they describe themselves as "christians". You've already said that you will > not listen when I disavow them. You seem to think that christendom is a > nicely well-organized place. It is not. You have already stated that you > are not listening, so why should I bother? Those who know my positions (and > you either do not or choose to misrepresent them) know that I have no use > for the likes of Identity. So, because it's not by YOUR choice that they claim to be Christians, you feel absolved by a quick and dirty "I agree". Read Bill Jefferys's article to find out how a real Christian responds to hatred and intolerance. YOu make me sick. > Besides, Rich, you ARE associated with those listed above; you are a member > of the human race. So where have YOU been in denouncing them, Charley? It's plainly obvious that the christian Wingate is so much more interested in finding fault with me than in denouncing hatred and bigotry in the name of Christianity. Some Christian you are. >>3) That you are more interested in "hoisting me from my own petard" than >> saying something constructive speaks for itself. Your interest is >> in belittling my position rather than denouncing anti-human activity. >> While I am trying to find out why the Christian community, which speaks >> of love for all people, falls silent in the face of bigotry, you turn to >> "I may be bad, but what about you" excuse making of the shoddiest kind. >> Your priorities are fucked, Charley. > Suck thy forked tongue in, O Snake. Who are you attacking now? Your > position, as you call it, is as judge of all who would dare post to the net. > Those who, for whatever reason, do not leap to your demand to denounce this > group or that group are branded as racist, anti-semite, or whatever your > favorite epithet is this week. If that is not presumption, then nothing is. > > There is no contradiction between my statements about Black's errors and > about your errors, Rich. You are both wrong, and both deserving of > condemnation. No contradiction, eh? I say it again: your priorities are fucked. More than a dozen other people on this net have come out clearly and unequivocally about what Black is and what he stands for. You have some fucking nerve labelling it "presumption". I don't care whether or not you speak up. The fact that you choose not to condemn speaks for itself. The fact that you choose to spend your time railing at me rather than at Christian intolerance (as evidenced in the past by your excuse making for manipulative unethical Christian proselytizing) shows that you don't think both are wrong. You are only willing to give lip service to condemning bigotry, but you're more than willing to spend time attacking me for pointing out where you're coming from. Go to hell, Charlie. I know you think because you're such a good Christian that you won't be, but I'm convinced that your raving hypocritical antics in blind support of your notions will win you a front row seat... -- Otology recapitulates phonology. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (04/07/85)
> From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) > Newsgroups: net.religion > Subject: Re: Inferring consent from silence > Message-ID: <710@mhuxt.UUCP> > Date: Wed, 27-Mar-85 10:08:07 EST > > People, can you not see the difference between doctrinal disagreements > > and *evil*? Is even obnoxious atheism the same threat to humanity as > > Nazism? > So nice to hear that you don't think we're quite as evil as > Nazis. What did we ever do to you? It's pretty damned amazing to hear > someone denouncing the Nazis, while in the same breath, showing > the kind of intolerance they were famous for. (Actually, I'm an agnostic, > rather than an athiest, but I'm sure you find us every bit as odious.) > > > > --Steve Bellovin > -- > Jeff Sonntag My apologies for any imprecision in my wording that mislead Jeff Sontag; I do not consider atheists, agnostics, or any other such group to be obnoxious, odious, etc. I do consider certain individuals to be obnoxious, at least as manifested by their net postings. This category includes atheists, Jews, Christians, pagans, and many others. My original note was addressed primarily to the Christians on the net who have responded at length to atheists, but have not responded to Don Black. I used the word "obnoxious" to forestall answers of the form "well, I would have remained silent, but the posting was so flame-ridden that I had to answer." Perhaps I should have phrased that sentence "Is atheism, even if propounded in an obnoxious mannter, the same threat to humanity as is Nazism?" Again, my apologies if my wording caused confusion. I trust that Jeff Sontag will retract his statement that I showed Nazi-like intolerance -- for I consider that to be a very serious charge indeed. I do my best to avoid flaming and empty rhetoric, and I hope others will do the same. --Steve Bellovin