Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!fsks From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.jewish,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: The Old Ways - final comments Message-ID: <150@unc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 4-May-85 23:44:40 EDT Article-I.D.: unc.150 Posted: Sat May 4 23:44:40 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 5-May-85 23:39:11 EDT References: <715@decwrl.UUCP> <587@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill Lines: 92 Xref: watmath net.religion:6830 net.religion.jewish:1911 net.religion.christian:698 Summary: (Shouldn't that say Rich Rosen, not Arthur Pewtey?) | V In article rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes: ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >What can we say about the difference between Identity Christian movements and >movements like the Moral Majority? The only one I can think of is in the area >of public relations: the Moral Majority is a "prettier", more PR-conscious >movement than the Identity Christians, who are more willing to resort to >violence at any time than MM. The Identity Christian movement preaches racial hatred and anti-semitism. Though some members of the Moral Majority might be racist, the group as a whole does not preach such poison. This is an important difference. Since you criticized the Moral Majority's public relations, let me suggest that YOU look after YOUR OWN public relations. How much help to you expect to get from the Christians in fighting the Don Black's of the world when you constantly insult them IN THEIR OWN NEWSGROUP! >The Moral Majority and their radical fundamentalist ilk may speak >in sweet voices publicly how they're not Nazis >("See? We love Israel! Therefore we love the Jews!"- Would you prefer that they attack Jewish concerns instead? What's the matter with you? >--note how the hypocritical cheek is turned to reveal face #2 when they >proclaim "How dare you accuse us of being anti-Semitic when we're simply >maligning the behavior of Jews?"). Does the Moral Majority malign the behavior of Jews? I have not heard these statements from them, and I am very sensitive to such propaganda. On the other hand, I would understand very easily that they should malign people like you. I don't understand why the people in net.religion.christian tolerate your frequent criticisms of Christianity IN THEIR OWN NEWSGROUP. >The IC's, on the other hand, are at least not masking their beliefs >with sugarcoating (they use more "big lie" oriented forms of deception). You presume to be able to read people's minds. How do you KNOW the Moral Majority is not sincere? I, too, have my doubts about their sincerity. But for God's sake, give them the benefit of the doubt! >Is what the Moral Morality and the fundamentalist religious right >are saying any different from the words of Don Black above? >I'd say not at all. Which words of Don Black, where? Some of the things Don Black said are consistant with Christianity. On the other hand, many of his statements are a perversion of Christianity. It depends which of his words you are talking about. Nobody is 100% screwed up. Even Hitler was kind to dogs. >So recognize what it is they're really saying. And realize that this goes >for those who would proclaim "I'm not one of them", while their actions >betray at best a shocking insensitivity and at worst an appalling level >of bigotry. They may say, "You know nothing about my church!", but we >have witnessed and learned something about the beliefs that their churches >have ingrained in them, and the actions that result. (And, no, I'm not >singling out one particular person here either.) Now YOU are using Don Black tactics. Don Black says: "Don't listen to what the Jews SAY they believe. WE know what they're really after!" You say: "Forget what Chritians SAY they believe! I know what they REALLY believe." Don't you think we should leave it to the Christians to define Christianity? >It is becoming apparent that the Don Black persona was more than likely a >fraud perpetrated by DEC employees. The fact that Don Black is the name of a >leader of the Alabama (?) KKK, plus the fact that Ken Arndt was conspicuously >absent (uncharacteristically so) during this whole affair (with some of >"Black's" material echoing his style), are factors leading to this conclusion. >Would an actual person who actually worked for DEC who actually believed what >was said actually leave his actual name? Nonetheless, "Black's" words are >worth looking at for what they represent. Some may take this as some sort of >excuse to say "Now you see why I didn't bother speaking out!" 20/20 hindsight. > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr I'm beginning to think that YOU are a fraud perpetrated by Ken Arndt, trying to see how far you could go before other Jews were willing to denounce YOU in public. Frank Silbermann