Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ulysses.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ulysses!smb
From: smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Why attack Christianty...
Message-ID: <828@ulysses.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Apr-84 21:37:04 EST
Article-I.D.: ulysses.828
Posted: Wed Apr 11 21:37:04 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Apr-84 00:08:50 EST
References: <45@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 55


	From: david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris)
	Subject: Why attack Christianty...
	Message-ID: <45@ssc-vax.UUCP>
	Date: Mon, 9-Apr-84 14:31:17 EST

	> We have seen
	> pious Christians who claim it is sinful to dance, laugh, love, or
	> sing.

	Have "we", now? :-)  I know one Christian who believes it is
	sinful to dance (I don't).  As far as I know, he never
	impressed that belief on anyone.

The idea that dancing is sinful was (and perhaps is) a tenet of many
major Baptist groups.  I remember a conversation a few years ago on the
subject of student demonstrations.  I attended Columbia during the late
60's, so I had many war stories (anti-war stories?) to tell.  My friend
(who incidentally had a master's in theology, and went to grad school
originally to become a minister) related stories about demonstrations at
Wake Forest University in 1965.  The students were protesting the ban on
dancing on campus; they bunny-hopped around the school...  And of course,
there are regular attacks on rock music, even the rhythms of rock.  (The
words may be lustful or even on occasion satanic ("please allow me to
introduce myself..."), but the rhythm?

	> It has been called a sin to heal the sick or to study the
	natural sciences.

	The gospels indicate that Jesus did not take such a dim view of
	healing.  And Paul tells us to be "wise as serpents".

Many fundamentalist groups feel that healing should be left to G-d.
The best-known current example is the case of Pamela Hamilton, a 13-year old
(or is it 16?) who has been receiving chemotherapy under court order, because
her parents don't believe in doctors.  The Amish reject technology (but not
modern medicine, interestingly enough).  I've even heard Christianity cited
as a reason for rejecting direct deposit of paychecks.  (No, I'm not making
this up -- there was a case just two years ago in North Carolina where a
state trooper filed suit because the state government wanted to pay everyone
via electronic funds transfers, and he claimed that this violated his rights
under the First Amendment.)

I agree that most of this (with the possible exception of the ban on
dancing) does not reflect mainstream Christian thought in this country.
But all these positions and more are proclaimed in the name of G-d.  They're
not true Christians?  Maybe, maybe not.  How can I tell?  For that matter,
how can you?  You've defined a Christian as one who acts like one, but
frankly, to a non-Christian it's hard to tell who's truly following the
words of Jesus.  The snake-handlers in the south cite some awfully-persuasive
verses to justify their beliefs; I'm not in a position to say that they're
wrong.

Me -- I don't really care what other folks believe, so long as they leave
me alone.  It's an exageration to say that religion is something that should
be practiced in private by consenting adults, but not by very much.