rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (03/28/85)
> Why is it allright to be anti-Christian, anti-God, anti-Moslem, but > anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli is anathema? Is this not hypocritical? Let's look closely at the differences between Black's definitions of "anti-Christian" (i.e., against that which he believes) and "anit-Jewish". Is he attacking the Jewish belief system, making comments on his personal views regarding it vis a vis his own belief system? Or is he telling derogatory lies about Jewish people, based on false testimony and his own warped convolution of Biblical text? He feels it's all right to tell lies about a group of people, but not to point out the truth about the actions of his own people (labelling it "anti-Christ"). The motivation for telling such lies? Why doesn't he tell us. Are Jews, homosexuals, atheists, Marxists doing things that harm your life? Specifically, what are these things? These are not objective factual statements Black makes about the world. These are the ravings of an insecure wimp who cannot face the reality of his own problems and pins the blame for them on anyone he can find: Jews, Marxists, atheists, homosexuals, anyone who's different enough from him to allow him to disassociate himself from them and to allow his offering of hatred toward them. He has problems, thus other people are the cause. Perhaps the real causes of his problems are just circumstance. Or perhaps his own incompetence that he cannot face up to, forcing him to pin blame for those problems on other people. Whatever the actual cause might be is irrelevant. He has found a scapegoat, and a supporting religious movement to back up his lame contentions. So off he goes making those contentions, making derogatory statements about many groups of people, claiming that it is HE who has been maligned. The big lie technique works. Unless you pound on the liars hard enough to demand evidence resulting in the final revelation that there is none. This is how the bigoted mind operates. If you think I'm "jumping to conclusions" and have no basis for calling Black a bigot, you haven't read what he's offered. I suggest you do so. Even the great Gary Samuelson, the champion of the promotion of Christianity, has come out and proudly admitted that he believes that what Black has to say is simply not worth commenting on. If silence implies concurrence, such a statement as Gary has made explicitly and directly concurs. > The biggest problem amongst Christians today is that we do tend to ignore > people such as yourself, Rich. That is, those who are bent on eliminating > any sort of God from everyday life. We don't take you seriously enough. What would you do to take me more seriously? Answer my questions directly and forthrightly? Engage in a serious dialogue about freedom in society? Or what? > And when we do we get labled A**h***s (usually f***ing a**h***s), s***heads, > bigots, racists, Nazis, etc. And the worst ephitets are thrown when we > get near the truth. What truth is that? "The worst epithets are thrown" BECAUSE we are near the truth. And the truth, in your case, merits the use of epithets. > Why is it that invectives aimed at Christianity are tolerated, > but legitimate questions about Judaism become "vile rhetoric?" > No, you're right--it ain't nice to rant untruths about Jews. But > I have a lot of questions about what the truth is. So do a lot of people. > How am I to learn if I don't ask? Can anyone cite one single QUESTION that Black has *asked*? He has wrongfully stated that the Jews are descended from Esau (followed by a derogatory remark about "selling his birthright for a bowl of beans"), he has claimed that Jews, along with other groups, are a "problem" though not the "real" problem, he has told falsehoods (based on "I heard" testimony ...) about Jews and Israel (for what purpose if not to defame an entire group of people?). With all these statements and claims which blatantly serve only to malign and not to enlighten, what the hell is he talking about when he claims that he is asking questions? It's scary that someone actually believed the crap Black stated above about asking questions enough to repeat it in a followup. It's clear that the vast majority of people in this country are ill-informed and ill-equipped to comprehend the tactics of fascism. As witnessed by the gullibility of many right here regarding Black. The man is not asking questions; the very fact that he already has a firm opinion based on lies he chooses to accept is indicative of his mindset. Invectives targeted at your version of "Christianity", or against any version that manifests itself in such heinous notions of racist ("mildly so", as Black would say) racial superiority, "divine right"/"manifest destiny" horsemanure that is based only on ego-/ethnocentric wishful thinking, and impositional morality, are quite reasonable, quite necessary. Malicious lies used as invective against groups disguised as "I'm ignorant---they were questions, please answer them" are little more than scatological. >>> I guess maybe an even greater problem in America is not with Communism, >>> not with atheists, not with the Jews, or the schools, or the politicians, >>It's nice to know that the Jews are not (yet) the greatest problem in >>Don Black's America. > There you go again, putting words in my mouth. Did I say the Jews were a > problem? Most certainly. When one says: "Maybe a GREATER problem is not with this list of things... but with...", one is directly implying that that list of things consists of "lesser" problems. If the sentence didn't directly imply it, the rest of your postings did so most admirably. >>Well, I guess Rich was right. EVEN NON-FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE IN AGREEMENT >>WITH BLACK! While Black is spouting his hatred of Jews, liberals, and >>non-missionary-positioners on this net, Machionni has the visciousness >>to discuss theology with this guy! And denigrating his critics!!!! >>Even worse! Saying things like "Don is correct," or "I have no >>qualms with Black," or "Black's point is well taken." >>Oh great Ubizmo! Is this what people like Marchionni were doing while >>the European Jews were being put in death camps? (Don't answer this, >>I know the answer already.) [?????] > What death camps?? The statement speaks for itself. Is this a "question" he is asking, (no, honestly, I just didn't know there were any, it's got nothing to do with the hate literature I read and believe...) or a bold malicious assertion that he believes there weren't any? Based on ... >>> From his postings I think Don is willing to work within the compromise >>> of a pluralistic society. >>Stick it, Marchionni. [bill peter] > I can't add any more, Bill. Somehow you say it all yourself. He sure did, and very well, too. Even Marchionni sort of halfheartedly came out and called Black for what he is since the original posting. Are *you* willing to work within the compromise of a pluralistic society? You forgot to state whether you were or not. > I agree about state religions, Laura. This is why our founding fathers > decreed in the Costitution prohibited the recognizing of any one religion. > They did acknowlege that the free exercise thereof should not be prohibited, > thus recognizing the legitimacy of ALL religions. The part of the Constitution you had previously left out of the list of principles you hold to and upon which you claimed the nation was founded. (Black had explicitly named "the Constitution of 1787" so as to exclude the Bill of Rights.) > Yeah, I'll still take a Christian state over a Judaic state any day > of the week. A matter of personal preference, I guess. Ideally, we'd > have a state governed precisely by the Constitution, as I advocate. But > many people are afraid of the Constitution, since they'd have to stop > being corrupt. The question regarded a Christian state versus a non-religious state. To Black, that is by inference a "Judaic" state, something he states derision for. Is anything "against" or contrary to Christianity (as you see it) the fault of the Jews and something to be eliminated? -- "When you believe in things that you don't understand, you'll suffer. Superstition ain't the way." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr