[net.religion] On Intolerance

mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (02/01/85)

In article <432@pyuxd.UUCP> Rich Rosen writes:

>The fact that manipulative proseltyzing in an effort to gain converts is NOT
>seen as "evil" does say something about the mindsets of (some!) Christians
>with regard to the rightness of their beliefs alongside the wrongness of
>others' beliefs AND with regard to the rights of other people to their own
>ways.  Perhaps Wingate sees nothing wrong with this sort of proselytizing.
>Along with many other Christians.  But why are those same "many other
>Christians" fighting vigorously against evolution and "humanist" teachings
>in the schools?  Are only THEY allowed to "proselytize"?

Manipulative proseltyzing??  Isn't that the entire substance of this
"argument"?  How is it that what you are doing, Rich, is not proseltyzing?
Personally, I see no reason why evolution cannot be taught; but Rich will
certainly ignore that statement and go on claiming that, since I am a 
christian, I therefore assent to anything any christian says or does.
I might also add that Rich, by his own words above, indicates who it is
who should be prevented from proselytizing.

>>>Do we always have to bear the brunt of these child-molesters, Charley?
>>>Can't these guys just leave well enough alone? [PETER]
>
>> Oh, puleeze....  Does that really justify fire-bombing a church?  As 
>> another respondent (whose name escapes me) has pointed out, the article
>> testifies to a certain lack of consideration on both sides. [WINGATE]
>
>As Ari Gross also said, witness the intolerance of the local Jews towards
>the proselytizing Christian church, but also witness the surrounding Arab
>countries (Muslims) who have sought continually to eliminate the existence
>of Israel.  Yes, there must be something in the air in that part of the
>world that brings out the most incredible intolerance.  Or could it have
>more to do with several adamantly rigid religious groups, all of whom have
>the mindset of group superiority and rightness stemming from their belief
>that their god is "on their side", living in close proximity to each other?
>Are we "safe" from this in the Americas simply because one particular group
>has a clear majority and (they seem to think) a "mandate" of rightness?
>Or does this make us just as close to the same sort of atmosphere?  I
>assume from earlier postings that Bill Peter is a Christian, and that in the
>above extract he is asking "Must all thinking rational Christians be tarred
>by the excesses and violence (psychological and physical) of the Christian
>extremists?"  As a non-Christian, I would say that to an outsider it might
>appear that way.  As Christians (with a stake in the above mindset?), Paul
>Dubuc and Charlie Wingate have dissociated the Christian belief from that
>mindset.  But the actions of many religious believers of many persuasions
>shows that the beliefs are inextricably linked to the mindset.

Analysis of net.singles indicates that an abusive mindset is inextricably
linked to use of usenet, too.  I'm not even going to bother replying to
this point further, because it has been worn into the ground.
 
>> Oh, yeah, the snide comments about my being a "great lover of the jewish
>> people": lighten up on the polemics, will you?  Why is it that it is
>> perfectly acceptable to complain about "christian" (the quotes indicating
>> that the people in question often have the most dubious claims to religion)
>> intolerance of Jews, while at the same time, the intolerance of certain
>> Jewish groups is a forbidden subject? [Wingate]
>
>I might ask why the "christian" (small initial and quoted) intolerance gets
>some special linguistic treatment to dissociate it from Christianity, while
>the phrase Jewish intolerance does not.  But I won't.  I happen to agree with
>with Charlie *says* regarding the fact that such intolerance as described
>here (from Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike) represents something heinous
>and disgusting.  But Charlie himself found nothing wrong with the Christian
>share of the intolerance madness.  (The manipulative proselytizing to lure
>Jewish converts into Christianity.)  Sort of a double standard there.  But
>then that's to be expected when the mindset tells you that you're justified
>in efforts to correct all the wrongthinking people into your "right way"
>mold.  (I mean the word 'you' generically, and I am not referring
>directly to Charlie.)

First of all, let me say that the original article which I posted had little
to say as to what the Baptists did with their spare time.  Second, let me
quote myself..."[T]he article testifies to a certain lack of consideration
on both sides."  Apparently Rich didn't read this sentence, or chose to
ignore it.  I hate to make ad hominem statements, but Rich's previous
responses tend to indicate the latter.  Rich apparently didn't read the
parenthetical remark explaining "christian" either, which is consistent with
his crusade to tar me as an anti-semite.

THe fact of the matter is, I DO see something wrong with intolerance.  I
disagree that proselytizing ipso facto represents intolerance.  Since when
is it intolerant to attempt to convert someone to a position you believe in?
I notice that it isn't when Rich does it-- and he does do it.

Charley Wingate  umcp-cs!mangoe

Omnis mundus jocundetur nato salvatore.