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!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.jewish,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: The Old Ways - final comments Message-ID: <953@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 6-May-85 10:42:03 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.953 Posted: Mon May 6 10:42:03 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 8-May-85 01:37:19 EDT References: <715@decwrl.UUCP> <587@pyuxd.UUCP> <150@unc.UUCP> Organization: The Chartered Accountants Who Want to Be Lion Tamers Association Lines: 159 Xref: watmath net.religion:6835 net.religion.jewish:1921 net.religion.christian:700 > (Shouldn't that say Rich Rosen, not Arthur Pewtey?) > | > V > In article rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes: > ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [FRANK SILBERMANN] No, it should say Dinsdale Piranha. >>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. The whole point of the prior article (repeating my reply to Don Black's original diatribe on the "old ways") attempted to show otherwise. Recognize what the notions of going bavk to those old ways really means. It means giving up social reform and rights finally recognized for other people so that THEY can go back to a more stable and predictable time for them. The old values these people speak of include bigotry, sexism, superiority notions, fervent nationalistic yahooism, and blind obedience to authority. Not an important difference? Only if you look at the cover and not inside the book. > 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! Insult? You mean open their belief systems to scrutiny? Which Christians have I unprovokedly insulted? I reply when defamed publicly by people like Wingate who quote random statistics and misquote articles seemingly only for the purpose of maligning me. What I "attack" is the foundations of a belief system which I have seen gaping holes in. A belief system that some would propose as THE one on which societal morality MUST be based. If you don't like that, if you have a problem with showing things for what they are, I'd say that's your problem, not mine. I'll continue to do what I'm doing as long as the threat continues. >>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? I'd prefer that they would be less hypocritical. We've seen how fundamentalist leaders are proud to proclaim that god does not listen to Jews, only to hear other, more PR-conscious leaders "denounce" the statement. The sentiment of that original proclaimer is rampant in Christian America, both overtly and subconsciously. >>--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. You *would* understand them maligning me? I guess I would too. I'm showing them for what they are. If I were some sort of public figure pointing these things out to millions of people (not that many of the blind and deaf followers would see or hear), I'm sure they would rush to malign me in any way possible. As you now seem to be doing. Why? The reason it is "tolerated" is because the net is a public forum, and probably because many of the "thinking" Christians (certainly not all Christians, just the ones for whom the word "thinking" should indeed be in quotes) choose to bypass what I write. Like you, they may make the excuse that it is "insulting", but no person is maligned in those postings, only holes in belief systems are pointed out. And perhaps they (and you) don't like that. >>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! So that their movement can make inroads into laying a groundwork for societal restrictions based on THEIR moral code? No thank you, I'll work in advance rather than waiting around. Falwell's insincerity and double- facedness is evident every time he appears on the tube. I don't give the benefit of the doubt to people who seek the "old ways", knowing what such statements about the "old ways" really mean. >>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? Obviously you missed the article that preceded this one, a reprinting of an old "Old ways" article. (Originally these two were one article, hence the word "above".) If you request, I'll mail you a copy. > 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. Seeing dogs as worthy of life while Jews are not strikes me as screwed up, doesn't it? >>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." Based on their actions for thousandss of years, and on the ingrained mindset of religious superiority preached from hundreds of pulpits across this country and adhered to by followers. These are not "Don Black" tactics. I am not tarring all Christians as a group. In a previous article, I acknowledged the Christians who have spoken out, recognizing and admitting that they have shown me that not all Christians are of the breed that seems more interested in proving and pushing Christianity and denouncing anyone who disagrees with them. Some actually live real Christianity, as in acting (as much) like Jesus is purported to have done (as possible). I *am*, though, pointing out those who ARE of that breed, the "pushers", who won't let any debunking stand in their way of ensuring that their way comes to pass. >>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. > 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. I think a number of other people, Jew and Christian and others alike, have concurred with my assessments of Black, and have expressed worry after witnessing the silence of the "pushing" element of the Christian community. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr