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: <962@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Thu, 9-May-85 10:15:50 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.962 Posted: Thu May 9 10:15:50 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 10-May-85 02:25:43 EDT References: <715@decwrl.UUCP> <587@pyuxd.UUCP> <150@unc.UUCP> <168@unc.UUCP> Organization: The Chartered Accountants Who Want to Be Lion Tamers Association Lines: 84 Xref: watmath net.religion:6861 net.religion.jewish:1945 net.religion.christian:715 >>>>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. > That only proves that there is dissent among Christians. > Even if Jerry Falwell is hypocritical, his assumed hypocracy shows that > he at least ACCEPTS the notion that blatant anti-semitism is unacceptable. > If he is a hypocrite, then removing that hypocracy would only turn him > into a raving anti-semite. I would NOT consider that an improvement. > Perhaps you would. I would in that it would show his movement for what it is, as all of these "let's go back to the old ways" movements really are. And that's my point. They hide under the veneer of "the old days were simpler, better, more predictable", and they appeal manipulatively and emotionally to their followers that way. But they hide what the consequences of their "going back" would be: loss of rights by people (blacks, Jews, non-religious people, women, homosexuals, etc.) who have worked to gain what they now have (which for some hasn't yet been much). They complain about the deterioration of the family. What they're really afraid of is the independence of individuals: without the controlling influence of a head-of-household and a family that is blindly adhered to, they and their movement haven't got a leg to stand on. Going back to the old ways, raising children to believe in that garbage, increases their membership and thus their power base. > The fact that Hitler liked dogs does not make liking dogs evil. Similarly, > agreement that we would be better off returning to tradional values > does NOT imply agreement on WHICH traditional values. Falwell and his lik make clear which values they are talking about. When you get down to it, their values are no different than those of the Identity Christians. Except that the IC's are overt and more than willing to use violence (in the name of god, how "christian") to get their way. Falwell is more interested in manipulating people into seeing his way. > But your postings are INEFFECTIVE. > If you want to persuede these people on any given topic, > e.g. compassion and tolerance for homosexuals, > then you must appeal to their most cherished Christian principles. > If you start out by attacking their whole perspective, > then nobody is going to listen, except those who would have agreed > with you beforehand. And then what will you have accomplished? > If you can't argue persuasively, then leave the job to someone else. > Don't pester the net community with long-winded, ineffective monologues. I could say the same for your monologues. There are obviously people who aren't going to be swayed by showing them either flaws in their beliefs, or contradictions between their professed beliefs and their actions. I've found such people respond by claiming you're attacking them rather than thinking about what you've said. >>>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. >>>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! [SILBERMANN] >>Insult? You mean open their belief systems to scrutiny? >>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. >>I'll continue to do what I'm doing as long as the threat continues. [ROSEN] > I have nothing against your pointing out inconsistencies within Christianity. > That is your right. But do it from within a Christian perspective > or do it in another newsgroup. Leave net.christian for the Christians. We've been through this before. A public forum is a public forum. It doesn't "belong" to anyone or any group. There is a private mailing list in existence which is a private forum. I post general topics to net.religion, otherwise I post to specific group(s) (and possibly the general group as well). -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr