rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/03/85)
The following article is a reproduction with comments of my response to what (apparently) was Don Black's first article on "getting back to the old ways". I am reprinting it at this time for several reasons. The increasing visibility of neo-Nazis in the world today, combined with the increasing insensitivity of those who would claim to be concerned sincere individuals, makes it all the more important that we recognize the warning signs of such movements: the buzzwords they use to incite and arouse people, the methods they use to promulgate their philosophies. The early words heard from Black consisted of the typical diatribes about the old ways, about how much better the old predictable understandable ways were than the new uncertain unpredictable ways. It is worthwhile to note what the use of such terms actually means. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > I submit that most of the problems in today's modern world are caused > by the discarding of the old traditions, beliefs, and liturgies by the world's > major religions. I believe that a general return to the Old Ways would > bring a substantial improvement to the quality of life for the world. I > personnally have found that my understanding of the world around me, and > my sense of purpose in life, has improved greatly since I discovered a > Conservative belief about religion. [DON BLACK - dec-nisysg!black] An analysis would indicate that most of the problems in today's modern world are caused by *the* *fact* *that* discarding most of the old traditions (e.g., treating members of minority/dissenting groups and women as inferiors, restriction of individual rights and enforcement of strict roles, etc.) in favor of more humane (and human) rights for all people RESULTS in problems for society: people who are "used to" certain levels of privilege at the expense of other people, people who expect certain role behaviors of other people and are disappointed when they are not followed, have "problems" associated with the changes in society. The call to return to the "old ways" is nothing more than a call to "give me back my privileges and make my life more predictable", since the old ways offered more predictable avenues for such people. The problems are that 1) if everyone is going to have individual rights, then things ARE going to change and things ARE going to be unpredictable, and 2) statement (1) is rather cold towards those who DO want to "go back". I could say "that's tough" (which, in a way, I feel obliged to), but their problems ARE problems of adjustment that need to be resolved. One might ask "Why should THEY have to readjust? Why not just leave things as they are as long as *someone* has to suffer?" The answer is that in the longterm future fewer people will "have to suffer" if such things change, as opposed to perpetuating their suffering by "leaving things alone". > I would like to make the observation that "Conservative" views on almost > any subject, and religion in particular, are very unpopular these days. The > old beliefs and values that served well for millenia have in general been > thrown to the winds because "they don't fit in today's modern world." "We > don't need to follow Scripture on that subject. That only applied back then." > People tend to follow the crowd, and pick up the currently popular fads. > "Try it, you'll like it." You say these things as if we're supposed to think "but those aren't reasons for 'throwing things to the winds'" OR "but those things aren't true at all". I'd venture that they ARE reasons and that they ARE true. WHOM did those beliefs and values "serve well for millenia"? Every individual person? Or just a select few? Or "society at large"? Are human beings supposed to behave in the way that best suits "society at large", or is "society at large" supposed to be designed to best serve the needs of its individuals? > I also do believe that this return to the Old Ways should absolutely > include a tolerance for the beliefs and opinions of everyone else. We were > all created as individuals, and as such we are entitled to our own personal > views. We are also entitled to allow those beliefs, opinions, and views > dictate how we conduct our lives and affairs as an individual. And if > some of us join together as a group with common beliefs, then that group > has the equal right to exist, even if its beliefs and philosophies conflict > with those of another group or individual. 1) Your statement in your own first paragraph about distaste for homosexuality (among other things) betrays the fact that you don't really believe this. (*) 2) What it really boils down to is that one person's/group's rights end when they begin interfere with those of another person/group. (* - see below) > Please understand that it was not meant as a snub to the ladies of the group. > Please also understand that there are also some of us who, while being ded- > icated to the concept of the equality of the sexes, firmly believe that the > philosophies of Unisex and/or Homosexuality are distasteful at best. ---- > I have found that many people consider the Christian Identity movement > to be very bigoted, almost Neo-Nazi. Nationalistic it may be, but definitely > NOT socialist. And I haven't yet found any of our clergy advocating the > opening of "refugee" camps or the displacement of other religious or ethnic > groups. On the other hand, there are undeniably several movements whose > only goal is to destroy religion and enslave anyone who espouses it. This is nothing more than catering to fear in the absence of evidence. Tell people that there "are" movements "whose only goal is to destroy religion and enslave anyone who espouses it" to engender their fear and rile them up against anything remotely contrary to their way of thinking. Can you tell us about some of these movements? It is often a tactic of those who wish to repress others to gather people together and warn them that THEY will be repressed unless they "do something". I believe that this is exactly the tactic that the so-called Christian Right is engaging in. You say "undeniably". *I* deny it. For you to use such a word, you should have evidence to back it up. [NOTE: To this day, despite requests from many people including the one included above, Black NEVER backed up his claims that there are "undeniably (oh?) several movements whose only goal is to destroy religion and enslave everyone who espouses it". This catering to fear is exactly the tactic that can and will be used to draw in support from the so-called "silent majority" of Christians. After all, it's undeniable. And we know how certain people are proud of accepting "undeniable" things on faith, or on the basis of the words of an "authority"... > I will end this submission with a question for thought: > What if the United States really was founded with a religious purpose, > and what if our prosperity as a Nation really is linked to our willingness > to follow religious laws? These are as important a set of questions as the "What If" questions they used to ask on Saturday Night Live. ("What if Spartacus had had a Piper Cub?" "What if Superman had grown up in Nazi Germany in the 1930's?") This country was founded with an ecumenical purpose: freedom for all individuals regardless of personal belief or ancestry. No, it didn't adhere to that goal fully from the beginning, due to longstanding and well-embedded prejudices and ideas. And, of course, it doesn't yet adhere to it. There's a long way to go down the road. Returning to the "old ways" is taking that road in the opposite direction, undoing all the good work that has been done. Our prosperity as a nation, and more importantly, as a world (how can you expect to stay prosperous at the expense of others who are not?), is based on how well society provides for the independence and freedom of every individual. > (OK, I admit the next question obviously is, whose do we follow? Answer: > That's up to the individual.) And if the individual chooses "none", that's his/her right, too. [NOTE: Recall how Black so readily contradicts himself. He repeatedly claims to support personal freedom and intolerance, while at the same time insisting (erroneously and fearmongeringly) that there are groups out to eradicate religion that must be stopped, and while at the same time spouting "distaste" for homosexuality. (The snub referred to above was the greeting in his earlier article "Gentlemen:", which he chose to apologize for to women by claiming his association with support for equal rights and by claiming that he was really showing distaste for "Unisex/homosexuality", though how he managed to relate the two is as unimaginable as Karen alias Larry's lumping together of homosexuality and transsexualism).] ----------- Notice that the principles outlined above about "preferring the old ways" falls in line with the very essence of fundamentalist principles. It is not dangerous when an individual chooses to use those principles for his/her own life. It IS dangerous when groups of such people seek to use those principles, with which I believe I have outlined a number of associated problems, with them, as the basis for ALL of society. I welcome comments on this, especially those that might show documented reasons for disagreeing with what I have offered on the subject of "going back to the old ways". Those out there who DO disagree, who DO prefer that we all "go back to the old ways", I'm anxious to hear your reasons why in light of what I've pointed out. My worry is that those like you who feel that way mark yourselves as easy targets for the neo-Nazis who use these buzzwords to aim precisely at you to get you into their constituency. Realize that they won't call themselves by name. Which makes them all the more dangerous, and you all the more susceptible to them. In any case, I AM anxious to hear your comments. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr