rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/11/85)
I've asked what I'm about to ask before, but perhaps it got swallowed up in the larger article of which the question was a part. So I'll ask again. Where have we seen the "christian" (to use Wingate's terminology) response to the articles of Don Black? In his articles, he has put forth a combination of intense hypocrisy, lies, and hatred, all in support of his very "christian" ideas. In response, what have we seen? One "christian" quoting scripture to *defend* Black's pronouncement of gays as scum in replying to an article that expressed dismay at the original Black article. Another "christian" supporting him in his labelling of any anti-racist force that works against the status quo as being antichrist and Communist. Quite a few non-christians offered rebuttal to Black's so-called "points", including a Jewish person pointing out that one of the subjects of Black's article about whom he expressed "concern" was a convicted Nazi. (Black had also commented on the "religious exhibits in public places" issue by sarcastically asking if he had "gone too far" by maligning Jews---as if to say that a Jews have control in determining what "goes too far", a favorite mouthing of the no holds barred religious right---Falwellism is nothing but an example of such a movement that has "cleaned up its act", condescendingly going overboard to say "See how we love the little Jews?") Back to the topic at hand. We have heard from the non-christians on the venom that Black has put forth. Where is the "christian" response? "charley" Wingate has oh, so often claimed that he is most certainly NOT allied with Falwell (though his attitudes would sometimes indicate otherwise), as have others, all of whom have lambasted ME for "attacking" all Christians and lumping them together with the reactionary religious right. Yet the silence itself speaks all too loudly. Do you have nothing to say about Black's statements? Are you too afraid to state your disagreement with (or distaste for) his notions? Are you too ashamed to state your agreement with them? Your silence is assent. Your quietism is acquiescence. Your closed-mouthness is consent. Your reticence is acceptance. Do you agree with what this man has to say? If so, why not be proud enough to say so, and to let us know why? If not, why not be forthright enough to say so, and to let us ALL know that you and others, as Christians, have only disgust and disdain for his notions of intolerance, of imposition on other people, of religious tyranny? I can only interpret not doing so as concurrence with the man's ideals. In which case, I can only feel very much justified in engaging in what has been called "attacking" with unprecedented fervor. Only, knowing what we would then know, "attacking" would hardly be the right word. The right word would indeed be "self-defense". As it always has been. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
amra@ihu1n.UUCP (s. aldrich) (03/13/85)
===> BELOW IS A SHORT QUOTE FROM Rich Rosen's Recent Posting <===== > I've asked what I'm about to ask before, but perhaps it got swallowed up > in the larger article of which the question was a part. So I'll ask again. > > Where have we seen the "christian" (to use Wingate's terminology) response > to the articles of Don Black? In his articles, he has put forth a > combination of intense hypocrisy, lies, and hatred, all in support of his > very "christian" ideas. In response, what have we seen? One "christian" > quoting scripture to *defend* Black's pronouncement of gays as scum in replying > to an article that expressed dismay at the original Black article. Another > "christian" supporting him in his labelling of any anti-racist force that > works against the status quo as being antichrist and Communist. Quite a few > non-christians offered rebuttal to Black's so-called "points", including a > Jewish person pointing out that one of the subjects of Black's article about > whom he expressed "concern" was a convicted Nazi. (Black had also commented > on the "religious exhibits in public places" issue by sarcastically asking if > he had "gone too far" by maligning Jews---as if to say that a Jews have control > in determining what "goes too far", a favorite mouthing of the no holds barred > religious right---Falwellism is nothing but an example of such a movement that > has "cleaned up its act", condescendingly going overboard to say "See how we > love the little Jews?") > > Back to the topic at hand. We have heard from the non-christians on the > venom that Black has put forth. Where is the "christian" response?....... > ....-- > Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. > Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr *************** RIGHT ON RICH!!! I would also like to hear some replies from these "individuals". Seems that the "silent majority" {:-)} have spoken again in the usual manner. I doubt if there will be many "replies" at all. PEACE & BEST WISHES From The Atoms Currently Associated As: Steve Aldrich (ihnp4!ihu1n!amra) "If I Lose My Mind, I Hope Someone Will Turn It In!" G. Carlin
amra@ihu1n.UUCP (s. aldrich) (03/13/85)
{ Your Travelling Through Another Dimension...........}
===> BELOW IS A QUOTE FROM: Rich Rosen's Recent Posting <=====
> I've asked what I'm about to ask before, but perhaps it got swallowed up
> in the larger article of which the question was a part. So I'll ask again.
>
> Where have we seen the "christian" (to use Wingate's terminology) response
> to the articles of Don Black? In his articles, he has put forth a
> combination of intense hypocrisy, lies, and hatred, all in support of his
> very "christian" ideas. In response, what have we seen? One "christian"
> quoting scripture to *defend* Black's pronouncement of gays as scum in replying
> to an article that expressed dismay at the original Black article. Another
> "christian" supporting him in his labelling of any anti-racist force that
> works against the status quo as being antichrist and Communist. Quite a few
> non-christians offered rebuttal to Black's so-called "points", including a
> Jewish person pointing out that one of the subjects of Black's article about
> whom he expressed "concern" was a convicted Nazi. (Black had also commented
> on the "religious exhibits in public places" issue by sarcastically asking if
> he had "gone too far" by maligning Jews---as if to say that a Jews have control
> in determining what "goes too far", a favorite mouthing of the no holds barred
> religious right---Falwellism is nothing but an example of such a movement that
> has "cleaned up its act", condescendingly going overboard to say "See how we
> love the little Jews?")
>
> Back to the topic at hand. We have heard from the non-christians on the
> venom that Black has put forth. Where is the "christian" response?.......
====> END OF SELECTED QUOTATION <=======
> Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
> Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
***************
RIGHT ON RICH!!! I would also like to hear some replies from
these "individuals". Seems that the "silent majority" {:-)} has
spoken again in the usual manner. I doubt if there will be many "replies"
at all.
PEACE & BEST WISHES
From The Atoms Currently Associated As:
Steve Aldrich (ihnp4!ihu1n!amra)
"If I Lose My Mind, I Hope Someone Will Turn It In!" G. Carlinhutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (03/21/85)
In article <200@ihu1n.UUCP> amra@ihu1n.UUCP (s. aldrich) writes: > > ===> BELOW IS A QUOTE FROM: Rich Rosen's Recent Posting <===== > > >> I've asked what I'm about to ask before, but perhaps it got swallowed up >> in the larger article of which the question was a part. So I'll ask again. >> >> Where have we seen the "christian" (to use Wingate's terminology) response >> to the articles of Don Black? In his articles, he has put forth a >> combination of intense hypocrisy, lies, and hatred, all in support of his >> very "christian" ideas. In response, what have we seen? One "christian" >> quoting scripture to *defend* Black's pronouncement of gays as scum in >> replying >> to an article that expressed dismay at the original Black article. Another >> "christian" supporting him in his labelling of any anti-racist force that >> works against the status quo as being antichrist and Communist. >> ... (more, elided to save space -Hutch ) >> >> Back to the topic at hand. We have heard from the non-christians on the >> venom that Black has put forth. Where is the "christian" response?....... > ====> END OF SELECTED QUOTATION <======= >> Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr > > *************** > > RIGHT ON RICH!!! I would also like to hear some replies from > these "individuals". Seems that the "silent majority" {:-)} has > spoken again in the usual manner. I doubt if there will be many "replies" > at all. > > PEACE & BEST WISHES > From The Atoms Currently Associated As: > Steve Aldrich (ihnp4!ihu1n!amra) Speaking as one of these "individuals" in the "silent majority" which is being taken to task, I have but one thing to say: WHAT ARTICLE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? You take us to task for not sharing your political beliefs in newsgroups which are supposed to be for discussing religion, because we don't react to an article which many of us have never seen! Remember, gentle people, that the propogation delay between major clusters on this net can exceed two weeks! I never saw any article by Don Black. I can assure you that if I had seen an article presenting such outrageous merde as Rich implies was in the alleged article, that I would certainly have responded publicly. Most of the .christian readers know this from reading the group for a while. So, please, don't assume that silence implies consent or agreement. In many cases it merely implies innocent ignorance. (Rich .. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to get furiously angry when someone reads things into your writings which aren't there, then to turn around and globally condemn us for our agreement with something we may not even know about? ) Hutch
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (03/22/85)
In article <1291@shark.UUCP> hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) writes: >(Rich .. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to get furiously angry when someone > reads things into your writings which aren't there, then to turn around > and globally condemn us for our agreement with something we may not even > know about? ) > >Hutch I'm sure that the maxim "silence implies consent" is the reason that many of us non-Christians get upset over not seeing responces to racist/sexist/ homophobic trash by mainstream Christians. Although you may not have seen the article, there are other Christians out there. -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/23/85)
> (Rich .. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to get furiously angry when someone > reads things into your writings which aren't there, then to turn around > and globally condemn us for our agreement with something we may not even > know about? ) [HUTCH] Not hypocritical. Stupid, yes, but not hypocritical. Stupid to assume that netnews reliability gets everything everywhere (at all). But not that stupid. You are using the word "we" but you are only speaking for yourself. Certainly Wingate has seen the articles as he has seen fit to comment on them. All we got was "charley" saying "yes, i agree" to what someone else had said. On the other hand, we got lots of christians actually DEFENDING Black and his neo-Nazi philosophy. So YOU may not have seen it, Hutch. (Though how you managed to see NONE of his articles and NONE of anyone else's responses defies comprehension.) But others certainly have and certainly have failed to say anything dissociating themselves from this philosophy, certainly a growing "christian" movement. I'll make a deal with you: definition of religion: anything you want -- include Buddhism, Marxism, embolism, cataclysm, tomatoes, whatever, I'll go along with it! subjective evidence: agreed---anything you subjectively experience really does happen and is verifiable and absolutely true! wishful thinking: nobody I've ever spoken to engages in that. Now, partially because I'm absolutely swamped here and more importantly because I think THIS issue is of paramount concern: 1. To Christians: What about this guy Black? And his philosophy of America's destiny under god and Christian morality and law? Does he represent your point of view? A slightly different one? An antithetical one? Does he have real truth to offer as agreed with by other Christians? Does he represent a growing influence in America? Do you care? 2. To non-Christians: I ask nothing. All the people who have responded to what Black has to offer have been non-Christians. Perhaps because it is we who have the most to fear (our freedom, our lives?) from his "Christian state". At least for the time being. Well, I do ask this: are you as frightened of this as I am? I mean, I've stated in the past that the very REASON why I feel I have to question the nature of certain wishful thinking and subjective evidence and presumptive belief systems is NOT because I *care* how/what other people believe, but because I fear those who would persuade such people that their beliefs form a basis and reason for controlling the lives of other people. And, as evidenced by already prevalent attitudes among Christians as shown towards certain groups AND as evidenced by the deadening silence offered in response to this Identity Christianity by the Christian community, my worst fears seem to be more than realized. When I first read that article from Newsweek (as posted by Byron Howes, article <421.mcnc.mcnc.UUCP>, plus Bill Peter alluded to another article in Time), I was in the waiting room of my dentist's office. I didn't need an anaesthetic that night---the article alone was enough to leave me numb. But not numb enough not to act. Some advice: read that article. (I probably no longer have original copies of Black's actual articles, but I will gladly mail copies of my responses to him which include significant (if not complete) extracted text from Black's articles.) -- "It's a lot like life..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (03/25/85)
Rich,
You are mistaken. I am Christian and unequivocally responded to
Black's Anti-Semitism. Am I the only one ?? I know some saw it
because they emailed their notice of it to me.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}sommers@topaz.ARPA (Liz Sommers) (03/26/85)
>2. To non-Christians: I ask nothing. All the people who have responded to > what Black has to offer have been non-Christians. Perhaps because > it is we who have the most to fear (our freedom, our lives?) from > his "Christian state". At least for the time being. Well, I do ask > this: are you as frightened of this as I am? I mean, I've stated in > the past that the very REASON why I feel I have to question the nature > of certain wishful thinking and subjective evidence and presumptive > belief systems is NOT because I *care* how/what other people believe, > but because I fear those who would persuade such people that their > beliefs form a basis and reason for controlling the lives of other > people. And, as evidenced by already prevalent attitudes among > Christians as shown towards certain groups AND as evidenced by the > deadening silence offered in response to this Identity Christianity > by the Christian community, my worst fears seem to be more than > realized. > -the article alone was enough to leave me numb. But not numb >enough not to act. >-- >"It's a lot like life..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Numb is the EXACT word. I have a hard time with all of this...called in a lot of my friends,lover, roomies to read it. The Christians just said "He is crazy, yes it is scary", and did not finish reading ...after all it "was just more of the same stuff". Well, I have a very Jewish background and I look very Jewish. Most of my family is first generation here...I am truly scared of the Nazis coming. Maybe this is a silly irrational fear, maybe I am just delving into "group memory". All I could think of is "this guy wants me dead"! I tried to start up a conversation about his political miscomprehensions, and all the answer I got was ANOTHER christian explaining to me that (I paraphrase) "This was started as a Christian state, James Madison was a Baptist." Something is very wrong here. Not a Jew, not a Christian -- liz sommers uucp: ...{harvard, seismo, ut-sally, sri-iu, ihnp4!packard}!topaz!sommers arpa: sommers@rutgers
hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) (03/26/85)
It is perhaps worth describing how I decide what to respond to on the net. I think other people follow a similar strategy. I would prefer these news groups to be for rational discussions of topics that I find interesting. I do not expect to hear what every reader thinks on every topic. Indeed, I don't *want* to hear what everyone thinks. What I want to see are well-documented articles that actually give me information I wouldn't otherwise have. Good examples are the detailed summaries of Boswell's book on homosexuality, and Jeff Gillette's exegetical comments on the relevant passages from Paul. But there is already too much random flaming. I am glad that Don Black posted his summary of Identity Christianity. I am appalled at the collection of beliefs there, but I am glad to know that it exists, and I would rather hear it from him than get a second-hand summary from someone who despises it. If I had anything to say in response to it that I thought most of the readers hadn't heard, I would say them. But I don't. I have no first-hand experience of the holocaust, and their analysis of the relevant OT and NT passages is so implausible that I can't believe anyone would find my rebuttals of any interest. If this group were a deliberative body, the situation would be very different. If someone suggested that my local church should adopt Identity Christianity, then I would be obligated to do what I could to stop it. In that context, it might well be that "silence gives consent". But we are not a deliberative body. We are not making any decisions, and there is no obligation for people to speak up when they see something that they disagree with. Indeed this group would quickly become impractical if we heard from everyone that considered a posting to be wrong or even immoral. Non-Christians should not try to judge what Christians think by reading net.religion.christian. If you are interested, you might want to talk to Christians near you, or contact a local church. You are not necessarily going to be able to tell which views on n.r.c are considered by most Christians to be "off the wall", and which are wide-spread (though when I post something, I do try to give you some idea whether I am giving you some private speculation or something that I think there would be a concensus about). It would also be legitimate to post a request asking whether a particular view is widespread. Someone did that a month or so ago about the Trinity. That seemed a reasonable enough question. Note however that in order to get a good response to a question like that, we are going to need opinions from at least a half-dozen people, who know various of the major Christian traditions. We certainly don't want to do this for every issue being discussed. If anyone seriously doubts that Christians in general believe that the holocaust occured, you could ask. But you should not expect that the readership is going to feel an obligation to condemn everything with which they disagree.
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (03/29/85)
In article <745@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) writes: >But not that stupid. You are using the word "we" but you are only speaking for >yourself. Certainly Wingate has seen the articles as he has seen fit to >comment on them. All we got was "charley" saying "yes, i agree" to what >someone else had said. On the other hand, we got lots of christians actually >DEFENDING Black and his neo-Nazi philosophy. So YOU may not have seen it, >Hutch. (Though how you managed to see NONE of his articles and NONE of anyone >else's responses defies comprehension.) But others certainly have and >certainly have failed to say anything dissociating themselves from this >philosophy, certainly a growing "christian" movement. Actually, I was speaking for myself and others here at tek wilsonville in ECS. Most of the folks I have talked with never saw his articles. However, my wife Penny tells me she saw them in net.religion, which I do not read. I recall vaguely seeing a Wingate article which agreed with SOME of the points in an article which I don't remember seeing, but it seemed to be against most of them. In any case, there are lots of non-Christians who also support the neo-Nazi groups, and a lot of crazed fools and cultists who believe the lies invented by pseudo-evangelist neo-Nazis. There is a concentration of those in Idaho which is entirely too close to where I grew up. It's probably a good place for them to be; the majority of the populace are armed and familiar with the proper use of firearms, and can fight back effectively should the neo-Nazi leadership decide they want to actually take over. >I'll make a deal with you: > >definition of religion: anything you want -- include Buddhism, Marxism, > embolism, cataclysm, tomatoes, whatever, I'll go along with it! > >subjective evidence: agreed---anything you subjectively experience really > does happen and is verifiable and absolutely true! > >wishful thinking: nobody I've ever spoken to engages in that. What a concession! Can we hold you to this? :-) >Now, partially because I'm absolutely swamped here and more importantly because >I think THIS issue is of paramount concern: > >1. To Christians: What about this guy Black? And his philosophy of America's > destiny under god and Christian morality and law? Does he represent > your point of view? A slightly different one? An antithetical one? > Does he have real truth to offer as agreed with by other Christians? > Does he represent a growing influence in America? Do you care? As far as I can tell, having seen only what you quoted, Black does not represent Christianity in any way. He represents a facet of movement which may be growing (I can't tell, not having access to a Real Good Database from various law-enforcement agencies about increase or decrease of nazi fringe); they are certainly becoming more aggressive. The idea of a "Christian State" is repellent to me. I don't WANT to have to accept as Christians people who are NOT Christians. I don't WANT to make other people accept the costs of being Christian, without the help of the Holy Spirit to support them. I certainly don't want the CHURCH (which is hard pressed to agree within itself on ANY peripheral issue) to take over the responsibility for deciding all sorts of trivial matters which are unrelated to its REAL responsibilities. Incidentally, Black denies that the Holocaust occurred. Thus he has, by throwing away history, thrown away any possibility that his claims to be Christian are valid. Christianity is an historical religion, that is, we follow a Messiah who lived, died, and was raised from the dead, IN REALITY, no fable, no myth. By claiming against an event which living people remember and for which real physical evidence exists, Don makes it impossible to accept the Christian Gospels, which were written by and attested to by living people who remembered it happening, and by the physical evidence of the empty tomb. Do I care about his beliefs? If he doesn't act on them, I have less reason to care about them. If he acts on them, or attempts to spread them, then you KNOW I care about them. I may not STOP him from spreading them, but I can certainly tell the truth to counter his lies. Hutch