sjs@u1100s.UUCP (Stan J. Switzer) (11/04/84)
< BUGS are people too > In response to my "David Brunson, come on down" article, I received mail from someone who is both a homosexual and a Christian. He said that he was glad that someone took a stand on this ongoing problem on the net (and in the world) without offending either Christians or homosexuals. Well, I will let you you judge on that count. Anyway, I set down to write him a note of thanks and I just couldn't stop typing. It seems I have drafted another net article. Here is the fruit of my labor: --------------------------------- I am glad I got some response, especially a positive response such as yours. I, too, see a need for greater tolerance in net.religion (and the world as a whole), but many such appeals ring hollow. It seems that people cannot divorce ethics from religion and this is difficult for those of us whose ethic calls for tolerance while many people's understanding of their religion calls for intolerance. I see this as a major misunderstanding, firstly because (other than, possibly, Islam -- and I do have a distinctly western perspective here, and may be prejudiced) the major religions of the world do not include intolerance in their value systems. Secondly, esp wrt. Christianity, I do not see the rules of conduct preached in religions construed to apply to non-believers. It also seems that there is more to religion that outward actions. I am not convinced that Christianity, itself, is opposed to homosexuality. From my perspective it is not an issue. There is no mandate in Christianity to shove its rules down other people's throats. I am glad you were not offended, however, because of my implication that a homosexual who was nevertheless Christian must be a Masochist. I am sure that it must feel like it sometimes. I applaud your courage. For myself, I am neither, but I do not like to see people hurting each other and then running to hide behind their religions. I will be the VERY last to ever side with Ken Arndt, but he does say one thing which seems true: The tide of public opinion is turning more traditional. He sees this as good, I see it as bad -- not because there is nothing of value in the old ways; on the contrary I, too, would like to see a return of the sense of community, pride in country (if only it were worthy of it), etc. -- but because there is no going back. These people want to pick and choose. Always we go forward, the only question is: "Which direction will we go?" Those calling for traditional values should look into their hearts to see what it is that they really want. They want to feel safe walking the streets at night (how can they feel safe with Blacks, Jews, <other ethnics>, and Homosexuals walking the streets as if they also had a right to civil liberties). They want a return of prosperity (there was a day when any *white* *man* could get a job). They want to feel safe as a nation (and, incidentally, protect multi-national interests ["Americans"] exploiting the impoverished people of third world nations). They want to preserve the freedom of religion (but this IS a Christian country). They want law and order (breaking the speed limit is not *really* breaking the law). They want freedom of the press (but some papers are *too* liberal). They the family to be a dominant force again (but the schools are supposed to instill values into our children, and the Government will take care of our parents when they get old). Indeed, these people do not speak what is in their hearts. The streets are for everyone. Prosperity is overrated, but opportunity is for everyone -- else it is just preference. Our nation will be secure when we (re)gain the respect and admiration of the world. The freedom of religion is a freedom to think freely, and our country probably has now (and at its conception) the largest variety of religions to ever live peacefully together. Law and order begins at home. Freedom of the press extends one's freedom to think freely to being able to say what you think without fear of death-squads or Gulag. If the family is to be dominant, parents must be responsible, children learn by example (BTW, if Johnny can't read, it is also the parent's fault -- I know of many children who are reading BEFORE they go to school), and we must not forget our own parents even when it is inconvenient to care for them. No, tolerance is not just a liberal buzz-word, it is a very necessary part of our diverse society. To some the idea of a diverse society is frightening, to me it is what makes it interesting. We so often forget what it means to live in a free society. What is it that keeps our streets from looking like Lebanon's, or Belfast's? It is the common understanding that it is OK to be/act/look/think/believe different. If we ever lose this understanding, either anarchy or a police-state will soon follow. Our government is too powerful to fall, so we must consider the alternative. Let's keep *America* safe for Democracy, we can worry about the *world* when we have got our own act together. Stan J. Switzer | "Quick! Don't crush that dwarf, hand ihnp4!u1100s!sjs | me the pliers"