Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Inferring consent from silence Message-ID: <846@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Apr-85 17:59:14 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.846 Posted: Wed Apr 3 17:59:14 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 4-Apr-85 08:16:39 EST References: <4397@umcp-cs.UUCP> <813@pyuxd.UUCP> <4474@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: STRONGARM COLLECTION AGENCY: We have no slogan Lines: 99 >>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. But you're apparently not among them. What a big incredible baby! Do you honestly think that rambling on about "you know nothing about the various forms of Christianity" is meaningful? Do you really think it makes a point? Is the point that I'm supposedly in error for associating you and your well-documented anti-xxxx (where xxxx has included Jews, blacks, and homo- sexuals in articles posted on this net!) because I'm "wrong" in lumping you in with other Christian labels? Congratulations, Charley, you've proved just the opposite: your own claims of being part of some "liberal Christian wing" are contradicted by your own actions, not by my "wishful thinking". When Black asserts "but I am for freedom" out of only one side of his mouth (need I repeat what comes out of the other?), it is no different from you proclaiming "how dare you associate such things with completely different labels?" to cover your own ass. The fact that you would proclaim your association with some "other" Christian classification means squat. Your actions say more. >>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. So, because it's not by YOUR choice that they claim to be Christians, you feel absolved by a quick and dirty "I agree". Read Bill Jefferys's article to find out how a real Christian responds to hatred and intolerance. YOu make me sick. > Besides, Rich, you ARE associated with those listed above; you are a member > of the human race. So where have YOU been in denouncing them, Charley? It's plainly obvious that the christian Wingate is so much more interested in finding fault with me than in denouncing hatred and bigotry in the name of Christianity. Some Christian you are. >>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. No contradiction, eh? I say it again: your priorities are fucked. More than a dozen other people on this net have come out clearly and unequivocally about what Black is and what he stands for. You have some fucking nerve labelling it "presumption". I don't care whether or not you speak up. The fact that you choose not to condemn speaks for itself. The fact that you choose to spend your time railing at me rather than at Christian intolerance (as evidenced in the past by your excuse making for manipulative unethical Christian proselytizing) shows that you don't think both are wrong. You are only willing to give lip service to condemning bigotry, but you're more than willing to spend time attacking me for pointing out where you're coming from. Go to hell, Charlie. I know you think because you're such a good Christian that you won't be, but I'm convinced that your raving hypocritical antics in blind support of your notions will win you a front row seat... -- Otology recapitulates phonology. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr