[net.religion] Needles in the camel's eye

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/21/85)

>> In article <528@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich the Notorious) writes:
>>> I entirely sympathize with the archbishop's complaint, and I might add that
>>> members of non-evangelical denominations in the USA are also subjected to
>>> such treatment.  This kind of behavior can only imply that the Eastern
>>> Orthodox (for example) are not to be considered christian-- hardly the way
>>> one wins ecumenical friends.  [CHARLIE WINGATE]

> Rich, do you read signatures?  Haven't you noticed yet that it's CHARLEY?
> [Sorry folks; I just couldn't resist anymore]

Well, I've had so much fun changing my own name, I just couldn't resist
changing somebody else's too.  :-)

>>Is Charlie saying that because the Orthodox Church has been a victim of
>>proselytizing, it is therefore non-christian (since "Christians" are asking
>>members of that church to "convert")?  Or is he saying that because they
>>reject such proselytizing they don't qualify as christian?  It's difficult to
>>decipher the intended meaning. (Note the use of the word christian with
>>no capitalization.  I'm confused as to what Charlie means when he says
>>Christian, christian, and "christian" (the last is used when Christians
>>(sp??) invoke intolerance by Charlie).

> Perhaps I was a bit elliptical; I intended to say that denominations which
> take broad views about who is a christian (such as the mainline protestants
> and the various Eastern churches) tend to view proselytization of their
> members by other (almost universally fundamentalist, by the way) christian
> sects and denominations as a hostile act; it implies that they aren't really
> christians.

I still don't understand.  Are you saying that because such groups view
proselytization by fundamentalist christian sects, they are thus not christian?
Because only the fundamentalists are real christians, and thus not wishing
to convert to their line of thinking = ...?  Or are you saying that thus
the fundamentalist proselytizers aren't christian?  Sorry, it seems cryptic to
me.

> As a side note, let me reveal a great secret: with one tiny exception, I do
> not capitalize "christian" in any systematic way.  I vary it irregularly so
> as to stir up Rich Rosen; since he enjoys finding hidden meaning in my
> postings, I decided to make sure there was some there to be found.  Sometimes
> I capitalize it or put it in quotes to indicate that I mean it sarcastically,
> but most of the time it's just for the heck of it.

Note that this "pattern" of random capitalization and quoting only evinced
itself after Charley had made remarks about the difference between:
	Jewish intolerance       and      "christian" intolerance

>>>Notice, however, that the archbishop did not demand rules to prevent these
>>>proselytizers from continuing in their practices.  There seems to be a 
>>>problem in this newsgroup in distinguishing moral persuasion (what the
>>>archbishop is doing) and moral coercion (writing "morality" into law).

>>This has got to be one of the single most twisted double standards I've ever
>>seen in any newsgroup.  (Charlie's own double standard regarding the
>>"unseriousness" of the heterosexuality questionnaire came close.)

> What????????  Double standard for what?

Here Charley praises the archbishop because he didn't demand "rules" for
prevention of proselytization, he just expected some common courtesy and
respect for other people's beliefs.  Considering that the biggest single
complaint about the evangelistic Christian right is their desire to legislate
morality (*their* morality, of course), it is more than ironic that Charley
claims there's a problem in this newsgroup regarding the ability to
distinguish moral persuasion from moral coercion.

> [Enter pronouncement mode]
> The Kettle would like to make a statement concerning the Pot's recent
> allegations concerning said Kettle's color.  He would merely like to ask if
> the Pot had passed in the vicinity of a mirror recently.
> [Exit pronouncement mode]

That's what my claim about a double standard above was all about, Mr. Pot... :-)
-- 
Otology recapitulates phonology.
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr