mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (03/22/85)
In article <731@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) writes: >> As for >> your erroneous comment about morality become law, let me remind you, Rich, >> that every country which has explicitly made the morality of a religion >> the law of the land is muslim. >I fail to see what relevance this statement has. I fear for my very life >because certain people in this country would use manipulative propaganda and >other means to sway the law of this country into their version of so-called >christian morality, you so-called christians don't speak one word of >condemnation (praise, yes; condemnation, no), and all you can say is "all >the countries where religion is the law of the land are Muslim"????? Have >we forgotten what life was like in Europe where religion was law? >Inquisitions? Pogroms? Slaughter and massacres and murder? Please have >something to say next time you respond by pointing fingers at other >religions. The true facts, which you are obviously unaware of, is that the denomination to which I belong, the Episcopal Church, has at every opportunity denounced the methods and the motives of those who want law to reflect "christian morality" (which, insofar as it reflects either the teaching of Jesus or the teachings of the Episcopal Church, is not at all Christian). I do not spend my every moment denouncing this and that because, frankly, it isn't going to do any good. Those who want such a change are not going to listen to me; those that are are generally already agreed that such a move is a bad idea. When I mentioned Islam, I had intended to say "every MODERN country"; I have not forgotten the middle ages. In your eagerness to bare your chest to the ruthless inquistors, you have forgotten that it was not only non-christians who were persecuted; heretics (and by their standards I would certainly be considered one) were treated with the same violence. Now listen closely, Rich, because I am about to give this movement the condemnation you have demanded. It is my firm belief that religion is a rotten basis for government. Such governments always tend towards intolerance and sanctimoniousness. In the case of the fundamentalist cause to"purify" America, I have a socond objection. Their positions on a wide range of moral issues simply don't reflect the complexity of real situations. Their statement of motives for forcing evolution out of the schools is simply dishonest. Their statements about abortion reveal the hardness of their hearts (which is not to say that their opponents on this issue are right either). This business about prayer in school also shows (to quote Screwtape) "a promising streak of dishonesty". >Gee, I would have thought you would have has something to say about his >notions of Jews as a "problem", of how he claims we should tolerate everyone >while he denies rights to homosexuals, of how we should "go back" to the >old ways, "go back" [sic] to having this country run by Christian morality >(?). Your silence implies concurrence. (Actually, your previous postings >have come awful close to implying concurrence, too.) So, if you disagree, >if you really do believe that you are distinct from Falwellism, speak now >or forever hold ... You have my condemnation above. It occurs to me that part of problem is that, because I do not see moral issues in black and white, my statements are not strong enough for your taste. By the way, my statement about Israeli law referred to an article which I chose not to post. You should already have seen an article referring to the "Good Old Ways"; at least I thought I posted it. >> One simply cannot condemn all the evils of the world; the day is not long >> enough in which to do it. Being in a different position with respect to >> the Don Blacks of the world, I've concluded that (a) I can't change their >> minds, and (2) anyone who I could convince already is aware that they are >> wrong. You claim to be reasonable, Rich; that is why I waste my breath >> on you. > Since you cannot condemn ALL the evils >in the world (i.e., not the "minor" ones like the Nazified Christianity that >Black proposes), you should concentrate on "serious" ones, like why inverted >quizzes about homosexuality are twisted falsehoods, why manipulative >proselytizing should not be discouraged, why individual human rights aren't >as important as certain other things... Thanks, Charley, for letting us >know where the liberal Christian priorities are. Hell, I'm now scared >shitless. I really mean that. With people like Charley "unallied" with >Falwell (on which side of him?) I have to fear for everything I hold dear! O.K., Rich, YOU tell me what I'm supposed to do. All you've done is sit back in the comfort of your office and spout invective. I really don't see the purpose of a long argument with Mr. Black, who isn't going to listen anyway. I mean, have you seen his posting in which he identifies this bookstore he's been talking about? Do you really think you can sway his mind? From the point of view of his morality, you and I are both hopeless. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/26/85)
>>I fail to see what relevance this statement has. I fear for my very life >>because certain people in this country would use manipulative propaganda and >>other means to sway the law of this country into their version of so-called >>christian morality, you so-called christians don't speak one word of >>condemnation (praise, yes; condemnation, no), and all you can say is "all >>the countries where religion is the law of the land are Muslim"????? Have >>we forgotten what life was like in Europe where religion was law? >>Inquisitions? Pogroms? Slaughter and massacres and murder? Please have >>something to say next time you respond by pointing fingers at other >>religions. [ROSEN] > The true facts, which you are obviously unaware of, is that the denomination > to which I belong, the Episcopal Church, has at every opportunity denounced > the methods and the motives of those who want law to reflect "christian > morality" (which, insofar as it reflects either the teaching of Jesus or the > teachings of the Episcopal Church, is not at all Christian). I do not spend > my every moment denouncing this and that because, frankly, it isn't going to > do any good. Those who want such a change are not going to listen to me; > those that are are generally already agreed that such a move is a bad idea. As in everything, actions speak louder than words. What your church has SAID "at every opportunity" is not reflected in your own actions. Again, your failure to speak out is equivalent to concurrence. > When I mentioned Islam, I had intended to say "every MODERN country"; I have > not forgotten the middle ages. In your eagerness to bare your chest to the > ruthless inquistors, you have forgotten that it was not only non-christians > who were persecuted; heretics (and by their standards I would certainly be > considered one) were treated with the same violence. But now, in these more enlightened times, only the truly non-christians (us and not you) would be so persecuted. And you don't give a damn. Which, of course, is to be expected, I'm afraid. > Now listen closely, Rich, because I am about to give this movement the > condemnation you have demanded. It is my firm belief that religion is a > rotten basis for government. Such governments always tend towards > intolerance and sanctimoniousness. In the case of the fundamentalist cause > to"purify" America, I have a socond objection. Their positions on a wide > range of moral issues simply don't reflect the complexity of real situations. > Their statement of motives for forcing evolution out of the schools is simply > dishonest. Their statements about abortion reveal the hardness of their > hearts (which is not to say that their opponents on this issue are right > either). This business about prayer in school also shows (to quote > Screwtape) "a promising streak of dishonesty". To which I say (as I've said) "It's about time". What do you intend to do about it? Forget about it now that you've sanctified and redeemed yourself? Or act? > You should already have seen an article referring to the "Good Old Ways"; at > least I thought I posted it. Of course not, this is Piscataway. Please mail me a copy. >>>One simply cannot condemn all the evils of the world; the day is not long >>>enough in which to do it. Being in a different position with respect to >>>the Don Blacks of the world, I've concluded that (a) I can't change their >>>minds, and (2) anyone who I could convince already is aware that they are >>>wrong. You claim to be reasonable, Rich; that is why I waste my breath >>>on you. >> Since you cannot condemn ALL the evils >>in the world (i.e., not the "minor" ones like the Nazified Christianity that >>Black proposes), you should concentrate on "serious" ones, like why inverted >>quizzes about homosexuality are twisted falsehoods, why manipulative >>proselytizing should not be discouraged, why individual human rights aren't >>as important as certain other things... Thanks, Charley, for letting us >>know where the liberal Christian priorities are. Hell, I'm now scared >>shitless. I really mean that. With people like Charley "unallied" with >>Falwell (on which side of him?) I have to fear for everything I hold dear! > O.K., Rich, YOU tell me what I'm supposed to do. All you've done is sit > back in the comfort of your office and spout invective. I really don't see > the purpose of a long argument with Mr. Black, who isn't going to listen > anyway. I mean, have you seen his posting in which he identifies this > bookstore he's been talking about? Do you really think you can sway his > mind? From the point of view of his morality, you and I are both hopeless. YOU and your church which speaks out at every opportunity can start ACTING at every opportunity to work against the filth that we've been offered by those like Mr. Black. You are a Christian, just like him. And his only strength is the strength he feels in the plurality and majority of Christendom in this country that he claims as god's christian land. By clearing disassociating from such tyrannical philosophies, and only by doing so, can their strength be eradicated. But frankly, I don't believe you care enough to do so, as evidenced by your own postings. Prove me wrong, if you really care. -- "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr