pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (03/21/84)
Amidst all the mud slinging between "Falwellites" and "Anti-falwellites" (What should I call the latter? Liberals?) I think each side is in need of a better understanding of the other. (Whether they want it is another question.) I think it's foolish and narrow minded to blame either side for all the evil in the world or for wanting to take over the country and run things their way. Each side pits its followers agianst the other in real "true believer" fashion. Having a "devil" to blame the worlds ills on is a convenient way of stirring up fanatical support for their cause. I think each "side" is to blame for many problems and each has done some good. I for one am not afraid to support the MM where I think they are right as well a oppose them where they are wrong. Same goes for the other groups. IN MY OPINION: I think that the Moral Majority's use of power bloc politics is out of character for a group supposedly based on Christian principles. Above that, they are sure God agrees with them on every point. Fallwell's proclaimation of AIDS as being God's judgement of homosexuals is totally unfounded. (With the same reasoning, I guess you could say that Liberals are God's judgment against the MM ;-) ). Also, his fund raising tactics sicken me. There's no excuse for it. Though I disagree strongly with many of the MM's beliefs and practices, I find no reason to condemn them as an organization. No more reason, that is, than I have to condemn People for the American Way (Who's president is also a Baptist minister BTW) as an organization. To support one only because they are in opposition to the other is foolishness. People should learn how to think rather than be told what to think. That takes listening to both sides--effort which few people are willing to take. I don't think that people should condemn the MM's involvement in politics before they realize that the groups they oppose are doing the same thing (and using the same methods) with their ideas. And I think the news media definitely biases itself against the MM. If you think that all Christians who see an application of biblical principles for society are "Falwellites" think again. Political involvement works both ways. Everyone in our society has the right to influence it with whatever principles they think are right. And I think they should be able to do so on par with others. To label one group as "dangerous" and target them for suppression is committing a wrong far worse than any wrong ideas the opposing group might have. Speaking of book burning and censorship, Liberals have been praciticing it for years under the guise of "instilling proper values in our children" and "removing stereotypes and religious influences". Cal Thomas, Falwell's right-hand-man (who seems to have a bit more common sense than Jerry) has written a book called "Book Burning". If anyone really wants to have an understanding of the conflict that the MM sees themselves in, I suggest you read it. I expected this book to be an emotional tirade against Liberalism but Thomas has made a good attempt at being reasonable and fair. So before you call *them* "book burners" read "Book Burning". You're arguing from ignorance, otherwise. One thing the book documents it the exclusion of Christian authored books from major bookstore chains and "best seller's lists". In response to this B. Dalton's has stocked up on many of the best selling books. I was impressed. They expanded their inventory and moved the "religious" section from the back to the middle of the store. They even buy advertising regularly in "Christianity Today". I'm sure B. Dalton stands to make a lot of money by breaking into this lucrative market. But still... B. Dalton ..... My hat is off. An example of Liberal intolerance would be the 'welcome' Fallwell received when he spoke at Harvard last year. Contrast that with the warm reception that Ted Kennedy received at Liberty Baptist College a few months later. It seems that cat calls and jeers at Jerry Falwell are justified because "Falwell is wrong and Liberals are right". But I'd bet if Kennedy had been treated the same way at LBC we all would have read about it in the news as an example of "bigoted fundamentalist fanaticism". Paul Dubuc
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (03/22/84)
The point that is often missed is that Falwell and Lear
(postulated polar opposites) is what this country is all
about. Instead of snarling and whining on this net, go
out and put your bucks where your mouthes are. Get involved
with some group that you can support financially and with
some of your time.
Remember that we live in a Republic but ultimately the will
of the people can be done if enough support for a position
can be generated (good or bad). The Constitution can be
amended for good or ill.
To paraphrase T. Jefferson "The price of Liberty is eternal
vigilance".
So don't let Falwell, Lear, or me take it away from you.
Bob Brown {...pur-ee!inuxc!ihnp4!clyde!akgua!rjb}
AT&T Technologies, Inc.............. Norcross, Ga
(404) 447-3784 ... Cornet 583-3784smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (03/22/84)
My objection to the Moral Majority is that they (a) claim a monopoly on Revealed Truth, and (b) use their interpretation of this as the basis for political action. Point (a) is consistent with the behavior of many religions; while I don't particularly care for it, it's certainly a reasonable exercise of freedom of religion. And almost any political viewpoint can be defended as well. But when the two are combined, you have an attempt to set public policy on religious grounds -- and that's one of the evil effects of a state-sponsored religion. Not only that, but the policies are set beyond the bounds of rational debate, because the proponents claim them to be a matter of revealed truth. So -- support any political position you want, including one based on your religious beliefs. But find some justification that a non-believer can accept.
jj@rabbit.UUCP (03/22/84)
Sigh, the stereotypes live on inside the article complaining about the stereotypes. One of them is that those who oppose the (im)Moral(not)Majorty are liberals. I've lambasted the MM several times on this net, usually in detail, and for specific actions that represent the abridgement of freedoms or the substitution of religious for legal principles. None the less, I suspect that few net readers will accuse me of being a "flaming liberal". (Well? Do any of you? :-) I object violently to stereotypes for several reasons. The most fundamental are ethical, but since ethics never afflicted most of the net, (NOT you, Paul, you are at least consistant, and you argue, as opposed to shout, shame I can't mail to you...) let me point out a reason that involves mere self-interest: When the Grenadian liberation (yeah, I'm going to use revolutionary terminology) was aided by the U.S. government, I was probably the foremost supporter of that invasion on this net. I was labelled as an "unrepentitant conservative", and there was a long debate about whether or not conservatives should be considered human, with lots of accusations flying back and forth accusing either me or the other side <that was about how it felt> of stupidity, moral terpitude, and many other things. Several people faked cancellation messages for my articles in order to shut me up, and we considered linking my mailbox to /dev/null for a week to keep the deliberate mail misusers from crashing rabbit by filling up our spool filesystem. The upshot of this damnfool discussion was the use of "rabbit!jj" as an example of the worst example of a net user for about six months or so. <This attitude did, in fact, get back to my management, who complained to me. I hope you bloody censors out there are satisfied, Tim (not M., for heavens sake!).> Well. Now I've been sucked into the abortion debate. Again, I'm using EXACTLY the same ethical basis, (defense of personal freedom) but NOW I'm the "damned satanic communist liberal" who "would eat dead babies for breakfast". <You should see my BAD mail...> Hell! Now, I'm a liberal of the most extreme bent. Will you all make up your minds??? I didn't even know that teddy bears were active in politics. :-) The next time that you use a stereotype, try to remember that the victim of your stereotype is probably a thinking being who will both be hurt by, and resent, your prejudice. -- TEDDY BEARS ARE NICER THAN PEOPLE--HUG YOURS TODAY! (If you go out in the woods today ... ) (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj
rcd@opus.UUCP (03/24/84)
<> > Amidst all the mud slinging between "Falwellites" and "Anti-falwellites" > (What should I call the latter? Liberals?)... Oops, I think that one was muddy too! It may have been a slip, but there are an awful lot of "anti-falwellites" who would be gravely insulted to be called "liberals"...in fact, opposition to Falwell comes from a remarkably widespread base. > I for one am not afraid to support the MM where I think they are > right as well a oppose them where they are wrong. Same goes for the other > groups. ...yes, but then you say... > Though I disagree strongly with > many of the MM's beliefs and practices, I find no reason to condemn them > as an organization... > I don't think that people should condemn the MM's involvement in politics > before they realize that the groups they oppose are doing the same thing I disagree strongly. I will condemn anyone for using immoral or unethical tactics to gain his ends. If both the MM and their opponents are playing dirty politics to get their own selfish ways, they are both wrong and I am against both. Ends DO NOT justify means. (Looking at it from the other side, I won't condemn Christianity just because the MM behaves scandalously and claims to be a Christian organization. Their behavior drags them down but need not take all of Christianity with it.) I believe that the reason that the MM is so often blasted for their actions is that they claim to be a Christian organization, yet they don't seem to show the alleged Christian traits of forgiveness, tolerance, kindness, etc. If I saw Falwell's behavior in an avowed politician, I would regard it as characteristic of underhanded, scurrilous politics - which seems to be the way politics is conducted, as often as not. But Falwell alleges himself to be operating not so much as a politician but as a Christian leader. Hence I must regard him as not only scurrilous but hypocritical. That's why he gets more than his "fair share" of abuse from other camps. > An example of Liberal intolerance would be the 'welcome' Fallwell received > when he spoke at Harvard last year. Contrast that with the warm reception > that Ted Kennedy received at Liberty Baptist College a few months later. > It seems that cat calls and jeers at Jerry Falwell are justified because > "Falwell is wrong and Liberals are right"... In my book, the catcalls and jeers would be wrong in either direction...but I suppose that in each case the audience treated the speaker with the same regard that they have come to expect from the speaker. That is, while Kennedy has no use for the reactionary Protestant fundamentalists, at least he can keep a civil tongue in his head most of the time. Falwell, on the other hand, would be happy to drive the liberals from the face of the earth straight through the gates of hell if he had the power - and he was greeted with corresponding respect. -- {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/24/84)
==================
My objection to the Moral Majority is that they (a) claim a monopoly on
Revealed Truth, and (b) use their interpretation of this as the basis
for political action. Point (a) is consistent with the behavior of
many religions; while I don't particularly care for it, it's certainly
a reasonable exercise of freedom of religion. And almost any political
viewpoint can be defended as well. But when the two are combined, you
have an attempt to set public policy on religious grounds -- and that's
one of the evil effects of a state-sponsored religion. Not only that,
but the policies are set beyond the bounds of rational debate, because
the proponents claim them to be a matter of revealed truth.
So -- support any political position you want, including one based on
your religious beliefs. But find some justification that a non-believer
can accept.
==================
The above is quoted in full, in part because I agree with it, but in part
because the entire thing could be reworded without reference to religion.
Consider the articles a few weeks ago by the person who was so certain
that a nuclear reactor under construction had to be stopped at all costs.
He felt that because he was RIGHT, he had the right to use force (not violence)
to impose his views.
There are many groups of people who are sure they are right about something,
and only the stupidity/evil of the rest of the world prevents them from
agreeing. That's not so bad, but the "logic" often follows that these
people have the right (or even duty) to impose their views on everyone
else for their own good.
Perhaps some of these fanatics do have truth on their side. Worse, perhaps
there are good rational arguments, but these arguments are too subtle to
be effectively presented in a public forum. How do we distinguish
rational fanatics from irrational ones. How do we distinguish rational
but wrong fanatics from rational but correct ones? Whose views should
we all accept for our own good?
For my part, I tend to agree with almost everything Jesus proclaimed or
tried to teach, and with almost nothing that so-called Christians say.
That means, to quote another prophet of a different age: "Let a thousand
flowers bloom."
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt