Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Inferring consent from silence
Message-ID: <4474@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 31-Mar-85 22:28:45 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.4474
Posted: Sun Mar 31 22:28:45 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Apr-85 01:38:05 EST
References: <4397@umcp-cs.UUCP> <813@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 86

In article <813@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP writes:

>>   O.K., Rich, I haven't heard you condemn any of the
>> following actions in a long time:
>> 
>>       (1) Soviet persecution of jews
>>       (2) Soviet persecution of christians
>>       (3) Soviet persecution of almost everyone else  :-)
>>       (4) The Ukrainian famine
>>       (5) Turkish repression of armenians
>>       (6) the Pol Pot regime
>>       (7) the government of South Africa
>>       (8) Iranian persecution of Ba'hais
>>       (9) The Invasion and occupation of Cyprus
>>      (10) Starvation in Africa
>>      (11) The Rape of the Sabine Women
>>        .
>>        .
>> 
>> Do I really have to go on?  Rich, I don't seriously believe that you condone 
>> all these things.  Why is it necessary that you assume that those of us who
>> don't see the use of talking with raised voice on every subject are therefore
>> in concurance with the worst viewpoint expressed?  Looks like hypocrisy to
>> me, Rich; you apply an impossible standard to christians, but you won't
>> submit to its application to you.
>
>1) I'm glad you don't seriously believe that I condone any of these things.
>   I still believe, from your words and (in)actions, that you do condone
>   (or could care less about) the anti-human side of the Christian spectrum
>   that is growing and taking hold more and more in this country.

Wishful thinking, Rich; you are projecting what you wish I believed onto me.
This discussion continues to demonstrate that you have already decided what
I believe.  You are obviously lacking in any real knowledge of the various
branches of christianity; the fact that you would identify Don Black with
protestant, Roman, or Eastern orthodoxy is sufficient demonstration.  Some
of us have other purposes in this world besides walking around condemning
every evil they see.  Some of us do things besides flaming at great lengths
on subjects we know little about.

>2) None of these things listed above is being perpetrated by groups I am
>   in league with or lumped in with by association.  If they were, I'd be
>   even more vocal about those things that I as an 'xxxx' were to be held
>   responsible for.  Because I'd have a more personal stake, and possibly
>   additional leverage, in generating change.  You, sir, see no such
>   responsibility or reason to speak out.  Thus, you apparently don't mind
>   Christianity being associated with the movement.  The man speaks as part
>   of the American Christian community, reaching into that community for
>   support for his ideas, and getting it!  You couldn't care less.  Hell,
>   he's not out for your blood, even if your church stands on the sidelines
>   booing Falwell.

How would you know?  You don't seem to have any info on my church, why
should I believe you on others?  I, and the church I belong to, have
absolutely no control over sects like Identity.  It is not by my choice that
they describe themselves as "christians".  You've already said that you will
not listen when I disavow them.  You seem to think that christendom is a
nicely well-organized place.  It is not.  You have already stated that you
are not listening, so why should I bother?  Those who know my positions (and
you either do not or choose to misrepresent them) know that I have no use
for the likes of Identity.

Besides, Rich, you ARE associated with those listed above; you are a member
of the human race.

>3) That you are more interested in "hoisting me from my own petard" than
>   saying something constructive speaks for itself.  Your interest is
>   in belittling my position rather than denouncing anti-human activity.
>   While I am trying to find out why the Christian community, which speaks
>   of love for all people, falls silent in the face of bigotry, you turn to
>   "I may be bad, but what about you" excuse making of the shoddiest kind.
>   Your priorities are fucked, Charley.

Suck thy forked tongue in, O Snake.  Who are you attacking now?  Your
position, as you call it, is as judge of all who would dare post to the net.
Those who, for whatever reason, do not leap to your demand to denounce this
group or that group are branded as racist, anti-semite, or whatever your
favorite epithet is this week.  If that is not presumption, then nothing is.

There is no contradiction between my statements about Black's errors and
about your errors, Rich.  You are both wrong, and both deserving of
condemnation.  When you presume to denounce everyone who, for whatever
reason (and you cannot legitimately claim to know the reasons of the
silent), does not speak as you demand, you have not a moral leg to stand on.

Charley Wingate    umcp-cs!mangoe