Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!nlt
From: nlt@duke.UUCP (N. L. Tinkham)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: More on silence
Message-ID: <5675@duke.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Apr-85 18:22:49 EST
Article-I.D.: duke.5675
Posted: Tue Apr  2 18:22:49 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Apr-85 07:58:24 EST
Organization: Duke University
Lines: 99

[*]

   First, some specific comments:

1) alice!jj writes:

> If you would have commented
> "I didn't think anyone would take this twit seriously, but since they
> have, here's what I think about him" I would credit that statement,
> BUT since you defend your silence rather than your religion, I
> feel otherwise.

In addition to my "defense of silence" I have posted two articles of the
sort you mention ("I didn't think anyone would take this twit seriously,
but since they have, here's what I think about [his beliefs]") -- one
("Re: Identity") a critique of his theological and historical claims,
the other ("In response to Rosen, Bellovin, Maroney, and others") a statement
that the ethics implied by his beliefs are contrary to the ethics of
Christianity.  So I think by now it should be clear what I think about
the actual content of Black's articles.

2) Laura Creighton writes:

> Lots of Christians were quick to denounce Mormons as not being Christians --
> lots of Christians were quick to denounce homosexuals as not being
> Christians as long as they felt that homosexuality was not a sin).
> It was clearly believed that to have these certain beliefs associated with
> Christianity was vile and odious to many Christians. SO WHERE IS THE EQUAL
> AMOUNT OF CONDEMNATION OF IDENTITY CHRISTIANITY BY CHRISTIANS? I am *still*
> waiting....
> 
> i can't help but think that there are Christians out there who think that
> homosexuals and Mormons are very dangerous threats and that the Identity
> Christians are not. I know, this belief is very hard to take seriously,
> but I cannot account for the silence on this issue at the same time as
> Mormons and homosexuals are subject to renunciation by Christians.

   While I am still not impressed by the "absolute" argument from silence
("Whenever an article is posted to net.religion, all net.religion readers
who do not explicitly state disagreement with the article can be assumed
to agree with it"), the above "relative" argument from silence makes
a worthwhile point.  It is troublesome that homosexuality and Mormon beliefs
would receive a more rapid denunciation from "lots of Christians" than Identity.
I do not know why this is the case.  (I leave that defense to those who
denounced homosexuality and/or the Mormons but not Identity.)

3) Rich Rosen writes:

>> [Tinkham:]
>> Should a group like that ever begin to come to power in this country,
>> I would use any moral means at my disposal to oppose them.
>
> [Rosen:]
> Will you act only if and when they "ever begin to come to power"?  Are you
> only willing to act when it's too late?  Or will you speak up now?  Having
> learned a lesson of history from those who didn't...

   Agreed, "begin to come to power" was too strong a phrase to use.  I didn't
mean we should wait until we've stumbled into a dictatorship (or even a
repressive democracy) before taking any action.  I meant to draw a distinction
between beliefs and actions:  when prejudices are acted upon, they hurt people,
and at that point the oppressors must be opposed.  Even the Identity people
and similar groups have a right to freedom of religion and speech, but when
their beliefs are acted out in a manner which harms others, political and
legal action is called for.


   Now, some general comments:

   Rich and others have made the point that evil actions begin with evil
thoughts, and it is better to oppose evil while it is still in the mind
than to wait until atrocities have been committed and then try to repair
the damage.  I thought I would never concede a point to Rich [ :-) !],
but I have been persuaded that I should listen more carefully to speakers
for Identity and similar groups because 1) they are, possibly, not
as small a minority as I had thought (I still have to verify that), 2) if
acted upon, their beliefs will, apparently, bring serious harm to others,
and 3) if acted upon, their beliefs will bring harm to others in the name
of Christ.
   #2 bothers me as a citizen and a moral person.  #3 bothers me as a
Christian.  Christ is recorded as having said (quoting Isaiah):  "The
Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to preach the gospel
to the poor.  He sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery
of sight to the blind, to set free those who are downtrodden, to proclaim
the favorable year of the Lord."  This "calling" to aid the poor and the
oppressed is a central part of the teaching of Christ, whom we as Christians
claim to follow.  There is no room in Christianity for participation in
the oppression of Jews or any other innocent minority group.
   We who are called Christians must be aware of what is being taught and done
in the name of Christ.  Apparently there is enough being done in the church
which is contrary to the spirit of Christ that it takes article upon article
to convince outside observers that we are not in principle immoral people.
I am not sure how to correct this -- I would not want to see a system
of church discipline which is as oppressive as the evils it is trying to
correct.  But perhaps there is a need, at the very least, to be more
vocal about the wrongs we see.

                                        N. L. Tinkham
                                        duke!nlt