How Can We Trust the Christians?
SE...@cunyvm.bitnet
g...@lakesys.lakesys.com (Dave Williams) writes:
>WVCY Holds Patriotic Fag Bashing Rally
> On September 8, 1990, WVCY, Milwaukee's Christian radio station
>held what was being promoted
>as a pro-flag and pro-America rally at Bruce hall
>in Mecca. The event, organized
>by Reverend Vic Eliason, featured the Life
>Action Ministries with their act
>entitled "America, you're too young to die."
>The event gathered more than three thousand spectators.
> Shortly after 6:00 pm, anticipating that the "save a flag" rally may in
>fact become a "kill a fag" rally,
(description of rally deleted)
> Before our eyes, the fundamentalists took a pro-America rally and by
>using shock tactics, led the audience
>to believe that gays, lesbians, pro-choice
>backers, and rock musicians and a few
>other select groups are fully responsible
>for the now imminent demise of out
>country. Then when they had fully convinced
>the audience of our impending doom,
>they soothed them with the promise that
>converting to their fundamental views would save our nation.
> ACT-UP Milwaukee has begun monitoring of WVCY's broadcasts and
>actions after last year's pride when they brought in Dr. Lorraine Day, adoctor
>who advocates quarantine camps for HIV+ people.
I have come to the point, based on reports such as the one above,
from regularly reading the postings in talk.religion.christian and
talk.religion.miscellaneous as well as from watching the fundagelical
programs on television that for me it is no longer possible to
just oppose specific noxious positions taken by groups of Christians.
I feel that it is necessary to consider Christian churches as a
conspiracy of psychopaths and criminals based on their adherence to
writings which are a well-spring of incitements to violence, murder,
bigotry, hatred, genocide, etc., and a never-ending source of
justifications for the most deplorable, repressive and mindlessly
vile conduct imaginable. Any Christian church or cult which does
not repudiate the inerrancy of the Christian scriptures and deplore
the butchery done in the name of the god of the bible is clearly
a potential hotbed of hatred and a menance to freedom.
A group of people who can look to a skull-crushing, blood-
drinking butcher god of the desert as the foundation, inspiration
and support of their lives is thoroughly and completely
rotted out morally. If the bible was another religion's scriptures
the Christians would be branding it an obscenity and burning it.
Anyone who calls himself/herself a Christian must in my book be
suspected as being unfit for public office, unfit to be a teacher,
unfit to be a parent, unfit to be a neighbor.......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Carroll "If there exists some Lord all powerful to fulfil
<SECBH@CUNYVM) in every creature bliss or woe, and action good or
ill; that Lord is stained with sin. Man does but
work his will."
from the Mahabodhi Jataka
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck McCaffrey
I have come to the point, based on reports such as the one above,
from regularly reading the postings in talk.religion.christian and
talk.religion.miscellaneous as well as from watching the fundagelical
programs on television that for me it is no longer possible to
just oppose specific noxious positions taken by groups of Christians.
. . .
Any Christian church or cult which does
not repudiate the inerrancy of the Christian scriptures and deplore
the butchery done in the name of the god of the bible is clearly
a potential hotbed of hatred and a menance to freedom.
. . .
Anyone who calls himself/herself a Christian must in my book be
suspected as being unfit for public office, unfit to be a teacher,
unfit to be a parent, unfit to be a neighbor.......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can understand your anger. I agree that all oppressed people need
to fight their oppressors (and everyone else's oppressors) at every
opportunity. I do not think, however, that all self-identified
Christians deserve your anger. I do not know what churches and
Christians you are familiar with. I do know that my church is openly,
strongly, defiantly gay-supportive, women-supportive,
minority-supportive, and other good things, as are the churchgoers
from my church that I call my friends. The church I attend is full of
love and teaches love. Any church that does otherwise is not
Christian, no matter what it may call itself. I direct my anger there.
--
\Chuck McCaffrey cmc...@urbana.mcd.mot.com 1101 E University Urbana IL 61801
\ For the lonesome-hearted lovers with too personal a tale,
/\ And for each unharmful gentle soul misplaced inside a jail,
/ \ And we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing.
ryerson.schwark
> .... all gays are wonderfully kind, loving people...and yet, I am
> sure there are SOME exceptions to that rule. It can work both ways...
A lot of us are gentle, angry people. Being told we are monsterous
sinners and perverts for the crime of loving is a hard thing to swallow
without a lot of rage. I have come to the conclusion that I am a
bigot. I hate religious fanatics. You, however, sound like a reasonable
person. Do you need some practice? :-)
Ry Schwark
"If fishes were wishes, I'd be stuck in the Sahara."
Neil P. Marsh
>
> In article <11...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> dr...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Neil
> P. Marsh) writes:
>
> [Evidently referring to a posting by Jack Carroll]
>
> >I am sorry you feel this way. I don't blame you, however.
> >I try to be the best Christian I can by following the two
> >laws set down by Christ: 1). Love God and 2). Love your
> >neighbor as yourself.
>
> In that order?
As I recall, Christ said these two were equal.
> >But there are many people out there who cause and inspire
> >such hatred based on the pen-scratchings of a male-dominant
> >culture such as ancient Jerusalem.
>
> I'm not at all clear on what you mean by pen-scratchings,
> nor is it clear to me just which ancient period of Jerusalem
> you refer to.
I am referring mainly, but not exclusively, to the book of Leviticus in the
Old Testament and to the society in Israel which spawned those attitudes. I
should have said Israel, but the name Jerusalem was mentioned by someone
speaking to me at the time I wrote this response.
> >I cannot blame you for feeling that Christians in general
> >are not trustworthy. Many are not, but many ARE. It all
> >boils down to learning about each individual person you
> >suspect.
>
> Would you say the majority are trustworthy or untrustworthy?
I am not qualified to judge on this account.
> >Oddly enough, as a non-practicing bisexual who is married, I
> >have a general world-view that all gays are wonderfully
> >kind, loving people...and yet, I am sure there are SOME
> >exceptions to that rule. It can work both ways...
>
> I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand you here at all.
> What is it that you are not practicing as a bisexual?
Everyone else seems to understand this, Jess. I am married, therefore I no
longer have relationships with men. Actually, there weren't any true
relationships before I was married, but since my marriage I have realized
that, if I were not married, I think that I might wish to have such a
relationship with a man.
> On what do you base this generally rosy view of "gays?"
The opinion is based on the examples set by my gay friends and those people
on the net.
> How is it that you came to be sure about these exceptions?
Which exceptions? Gays or Christians? The Christian exceptions are obvious
to me. There are many out there who DO believe as I do. Who do not take
the Bible so seriously in certain areas and rely more on the teachings of
Jesus as the basis for their attitudes. If you are talking about the
exceptions to my rule about gays, my brother-in-law is a perfect example.
He is an attractive, straight young man. An older, gay employee gave him a
letter describing the kinds of things he wanted to with Brad. He also
threatened Brad with getting him fired if he said anything. Brad took the
letter to his parents and the police were brought in. The man was fired.
This man, though gay, was obviously an exception to the examples set for me
by my gay friends.
> What is it that works both ways?
There can be both kinds of people, good and bad Christians and good and bad
gays. There just happens to be a proliferation of bad Christians and a
proliferation of good gays. This is, of course, based only on my experiences
and observations.
Now, I have a question, Jess. Were you genuinely confused, or were you
being sarcastic because you think there can't be good Christians? I'm just
curious because I didn't expect to find my response dissected like this.
> Jess Anderson Madison Academic Computing Center University of Wisconsin
> Work: Rm. 3130, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706, Ph. 608/262-5888
> Home: 2838 Stevens St., 53705, 608/238-4833 Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
> Internet: ande...@macc.wisc.edu UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
Neil P. Marsh UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!drwho
810 W. Jackson Street <* Lepus Productions - Ebunny Hall Studios *>
Muncie, IN 47305 (1-317-747-0023)
"How many students can claim that their entire senior college year was paid
for by David Letterman?"
-- Me
Neil P. Marsh
best Christian I can by following the two laws set down by Christ: 1).
out there who cause and inspire such hatred based on the pen-scratchings of
feeling that Christians in general are not trustworthy. Many are not, but
many ARE. It all boils down to learning about each individual person you
suspect.
Oddly enough, as a non-practicing bisexual who is married, I have a general
world-view that all gays are wonderfully kind, loving people...and yet, I am
sure there are SOME exceptions to that rule. It can work both ways...
Neil P. Marsh UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!drwho
810 E. Jackson Street <* Lepus Productions - Ebunny Hall Studios *>
Muncie, IN 47305 (1-317-747-0023)
Fighting religious intolerance wherever it may raise its ugly head...
Jess Anderson
[Evidently referring to a posting by Jack Carroll]
>I am sorry you feel this way. I don't blame you, however.
>I try to be the best Christian I can by following the two
>laws set down by Christ: 1). Love God and 2). Love your
>neighbor as yourself.
In that order?
>But there are many people out there who cause and inspire
>such hatred based on the pen-scratchings of a male-dominant
>culture such as ancient Jerusalem.
I'm not at all clear on what you mean by pen-scratchings,
nor is it clear to me just which ancient period of Jerusalem
you refer to.
>I cannot blame you for feeling that Christians in general
>are not trustworthy. Many are not, but many ARE. It all
>boils down to learning about each individual person you
>suspect.
Would you say the majority are trustworthy or untrustworthy?
>Oddly enough, as a non-practicing bisexual who is married, I
>have a general world-view that all gays are wonderfully
>kind, loving people...and yet, I am sure there are SOME
>exceptions to that rule. It can work both ways...
I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand you here at all.
What is it that you are not practicing as a bisexual? On
what do you base this generally rosy view of "gays?" How
is it that you came to be sure about these exceptions?
What is it that works both ways?
--
Robert Kelly
>Anyone who calls himself/herself a Christian must in my book be
>suspected as being unfit for public office, unfit to be a teacher,
>unfit to be a parent, unfit to be a neighbor.......
Unfit to be our president...
Yeah, I get a bitter taste in my mouth when I read the things that
"Christians" do. And I feel this way when adamant feminists come
up to me and tell me I should cut my balls off because I support
the partirarchy by being male. (yes, one lady did say this to me
recently. I looked at her with the same contempt as I do when
Black people tell me _I_ am oppressing them. Which has happened
recently do to an questionable racial incident on Greek row here.)
No, when I die and find out that GOD is a biggoted old man who
will ask me to mend my ways, I'll tell GOD - and all of his blind
followers down - that I'd rather go to hell and rot than suck
him off in heaven.
Personally, I believe in a creator, not a White, Male Diety with
a Beard and White Robe.
found on bathroom urinal:
"God is dead!" Neitsche
"Neitsche is dead!" God
B
Bad Bernardo
>best Christian I can by following the two laws set down by Christ: 1).
>Love God and 2). Love your neighbor as yourself. But there are many people
>out there who cause and inspire such hatred based on the pen-scratchings of
>a male-dominant culture such as ancient Jerusalem.
Hm. Seems to me it wasn't Jesus who set down those two rules; he was just
repeating some "pen-scratchings".
--
Rob Bernardo, Mt. Diablo Software Solutions
email: r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US
phone: (415) 827-4301
Neil P. Marsh
You are partially right. Jesus was quoting commandments of the Law, but he
was now putting things in perspective. Putting these two laws above ALL
others.
In Matthew 22:36, Jesus is asked by a lawyer "Teacher, which is the greatest
commandment in the law.", to which Jesus replies "'Love the Lord your God
with all your heart, with all your soul, and all your mind.' This is the
greatest commandment (apologies to Jess, they WERE in order) and the second
is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'".
Neil P. Marsh UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!drwho
810 W. Jackson Street <* Lepus Productions - Ebunny Hall Studios *>
Muncie, IN 47305 (1-317-747-0023)
"How many students can claim that their entire senior college year was paid
cjmc...@swift.cs.tcd.ie
>
> [Evidently referring to a posting by Jack Carroll]
>>Oddly enough, as a non-practicing bisexual who is married, I
>>have a general world-view that all gays are wonderfully
>>kind, loving people...and yet, I am sure there are SOME
>>exceptions to that rule. It can work both ways...
>
> I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand you here at all.
> What is it that you are not practicing as a bisexual? On
> what do you base this generally rosy view of "gays?" How
> is it that you came to be sure about these exceptions?
> What is it that works both ways?
I'm not sure what Jess is getting at here. Maybe he is confused as he
implies or perhaps he's trying to be pedantic. From my point of view I
think I understood what the poster meant. So here's my (drunken, hic)
answer to Jess' questions:
> What is it that you are not practicing as a bisexual?
I think Neil is trying to say that he is faithful to his wife.
As such he is currently mono-sexual (dunno if there is such a word but
you get the gist). I _know_ that the definition of a bisexual is _not_
somebody who has ongoing sexual relations with people of both genders at
the same time but come on Jess, (presuming that you were being pedantic
in your posting) realise that the english language is ambiguous and try
to read his sentence as he meant it rather than the many different ways
it could possibly be interpreted.
> On what do you base this generally rosy view of "gays?"
Yes, you're right. Neil is a naughty boy for using "gays" as a noun
rather than an adjective. He's a bit like me. I used to think that
"belief" was an adjective: You know, sentences that started off with
"I belief that ..." It took ages for people to cop on that my grammar
was incorrect because I spoke with such a strong accent. :-)
But to answer the question which Jess asked:
I would say that any crisis which I have had to face (death of a loved
one, break up with a SO, etc) have made me a better person. "Better"
because it made me think deeply about "life the universe and
everything." Doing so has helped to turn me from an ignorant selfish
brute into a caring sensitive person. (Exagerated, but true to a
certain extent.) I think that if a person faces a crisis it will
either make him/her into a more bitter person or a "better" (more
sensitive, caring ...) person. I further think that the latter is the
more usual. Since, in general, GLBO people have a _major_ crisis to face
(accepting their sexuality, facing up to a homophobic society) they
generally are forced to contemplate "life the universe and everything"
in more depth and this leads to them, generally, becomming more
caring and sensitive than the average straight person.
Two quotes to back up this point are:
[Some GBO male said something like this in a recent posting
about "if you had the chance, would you change your sexuality?"]
I like women too much to want to become a het.
[My interpretation]
Straight men are, in general, more insensitive to women that
gay men. Since I have lots of close female friends I would
hate to treat them with the insensitiveness of a straight;
hence I do not want to change my sexuality.
[Somebody called `Jess Anderson':-) said something like this recently]
I'm a musician. When I moved to a new town I was shown an
enormous amount of hopspitality by the gay community there. It
really helped me to settle in. So much so that my straight
musician friends were very jelous.
[My interpretation]
The gay community cares for its own. Much better than the het
society cares for its own.
>>I have a general world-view that all gays are wonderfully
>>kind, loving people...and yet, I am sure there are SOME
>>exceptions to that rule.
> How is it that you came to be sure about these exceptions?
Simple. There are exceptions to every rule. (Any arguments?)
> What is it that works both ways?
The pertinant posting might have been "lost in the midst of time" or
something so I'm willing to believe that Jess honestly doesn't know
what Neil is saying here. Neil is referring to an earlier posting which
put forward the opinion that (het) Christians were uncaring/untrusting
(or something like that; sorry I lost the article myself). Neil is
pointing out that by statistical probability there must be some GLBO
people who are as equally <whatever the term> as the sterotypical
Christian. So you can't generalise and say "Christians are uncaring to
the plight of gay people" (or whatever) since there _are_
(by stastical laws) gay people who could be rightly considered to be
uncaring insinsitive assh*oles.
The astute reader may think that the sarcatic prose in this posting is
meant as a flame of Jess. :-) Well, if Jess is trying to be pedantic
as I suspect he is in his posting then, yes, this posting is a flame.
If Jess is asking his questions innocently then I'll appologise when I
get back from holidays (about 2 weeks).
Please email me a copy of any followup flame postings so I don't miss
them due to my holidays.
Regards,
Ciaran.
--
Ciaran McHale
Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Telephone: +353-1-772941 ext 1538 FAX: +353-1-772204 Telex: 93782 TCD EI
email: cjmc...@cs.tcd.ie or cjmchale%cs.t...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
My opinions are mine but you can share them too if you want.
Robert Wahl
>Hm. Seems to me it wasn't Jesus who set down those two rules; he was just
>repeating some "pen-scratchings".
Post hoc, ergo procter hoc? Or dismissal by trivialization? =:->
--
Rob Wahl =:-> {rob...@auto-trol.com | ...!ncar!ico!auto-trol|robwah}
Scott Ballew
>... I looked at her with the same contempt as I do when
>Black people tell me _I_ am oppressing them. ...
Which is exactly how many Christians feel when the Gay Community tells
them that they are opressing us! Keep in mind that what you generally
see as Christianity in this country (can't speak for elsewhere) is NOT
the opinion of the majority but rather of a VERY vocal minority!
Scott
Henry Mensch
->Which is exactly how many Christians feel when the Gay Community tells
->them that they are opressing us! Keep in mind that what you generally
->see as Christianity in this country (can't speak for elsewhere) is NOT
->the opinion of the majority but rather of a VERY vocal minority!
which brings us to "just why is the majority so silent?"
# Henry Mensch / <he...@garp.mit.edu> / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA
# <hme...@uk.ac.nsfnet-relay> / <he...@tts.lth.se> / <men...@munnari.oz.au>
# via X.400: S=mensch; OU=informatik; P=tu-muenchen; A=dbp; C=de
Jess Anderson
In article <11...@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> s...@cs.purdue.EDU
(Scott Ballew) writes:
>In article <1990Sep22....@ariel.unm.edu>
>rke...@gauss.unm.edu (Robert Kelly) writes:
>>... I looked at her with the same contempt as I do when
>>Black people tell me _I_ am oppressing them. ...
>Which is exactly how many Christians feel when the Gay
>Community tells them that they are opressing us!
I don't understand, really, why what we might call the
"good" religious person (Christians are not the only people
who use their religion to oppress us) should feel put upon
by our denunciation of those who oppress us (for whatever
reason, from whatever point of view). Should not those
people be relatively secure in the knowledge that it is
not them we refer to?
To press that point a little further, perhaps one should
make a relatively blanket denunciation and see who pops up
with the most vigorous denials; perhaps those are the very
ones not to be trusted.
>Keep in mind that what you generally see as Christianity in
>this country (can't speak for elsewhere) is NOT the opinion
>of the majority but rather of a VERY vocal minority!
I find this claim a bit hard to swallow. It's true there is
a vocal sector which says a lot of hateful things. But I
don't think the number of people who tacitly adhere to their
regressive tendencies is anything like small. Indeed,
though I don't know for certain, I would be surprised if
those who would oppress us because of their religious
beliefs are a minority.
Brian D. Moe
Unless one is really looking, what one sees as Christianity is what
people are advertising as Christianity. The overt Christians that
I know (and I've met alot of them since moving to the Bible Belt) seem
to actually BE good decent caring people -- you know, they act christian.
With the approach of National Coming Out Day, I find myself trying
to classify people at work as (relatively) easy or hard to come out to.
Up until recently, I've been a knee-jerk anti-christianity kind o' guy,
so it's quite to my surprise that the overt Christians all appear on the
"easy" list.
I think I'm actually learning to make the distinction between sincere, open
Christians and those nominal ones who spew out vast quantities of counter
proofs of their sincere belief of their own religion.
David Hallman
>
>In article <11...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> dr...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Neil
>P. Marsh) writes:
>
>[Evidently referring to a posting by Jack Carroll]
>
>>have a general world-view that all gays are wonderfully
>>kind, loving people...and yet, I am sure there are SOME
>>exceptions to that rule. It can work both ways...
>
>I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand you here at all.
>What is it that you are not practicing as a bisexual? On
>what do you base this generally rosy view of "gays?" How
>is it that you came to be sure about these exceptions?
>What is it that works both ways?
Sorry to have awakened you from your nap, you can go back
to sleep now.
--
Ingres Corporation | Dave Hallman (hal...@ingres.com)
| Strategic/OEM Support (SOS)
SpIke
(Robert Kelly) writes:
>... I looked at her with the same contempt as I do when
>Black people tell me _I_ am oppressing them. ...
I never saw the whole of this, only the many people quoting it, and so I may
be taking it completely out of context. (In fact, I guess I am :-)
This statement really disturbs me. It is such a cold-hearted way to treat
the justified rage of any people. I know lots of young male engineering
students who feel exactly this way about the complaints of women's groups.
They figure that they don't consciously act sexistly, so the people who are
complaining are full of shit. They don't recognise their own unconscious
actions, and don't acknowledge the advantages they routinely take for granted
in their priviledged position.
I would be cautious in rejecting such complaints. You can never be sure
when your bigotry gets the best of you....
SpIke.
P.S. On re-reading, I discovered that I assumed Rob Kelly is not a Black
person. If he is, this article is rather spurious. The dangers of
unwarranted assumptions rear their ugly head....
--
David SpIke Drascic ____ There is NO 'One True Way'
dra...@ecf.utoronto.ca \ / - Mercedes Lackey
Sp...@vered.rose.utoronto.ca \/ <- pretend it's pink
Jess Anderson
In article <1990Sep26....@ingres.Ingres.COM>
hal...@ingres.com (David Hallman) writes:
]In article <44...@dogie.macc.wisc.edu>
]ande...@udder.macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
]>In article <11...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> dr...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Neil
]>P. Marsh) writes:
]>>Oddly enough, as a non-practicing bisexual who is married, I
]>>have a general world-view that all gays are wonderfully
]>>kind, loving people...and yet, I am sure there are SOME
]>>exceptions to that rule. It can work both ways...
]>I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand you here at all.
]>What is it that you are not practicing as a bisexual? On
]>what do you base this generally rosy view of "gays?" How
]>is it that you came to be sure about these exceptions?
]>What is it that works both ways?
]Sorry to have awakened you from your nap, you can go back
]to sleep now.
Ok, friend, you said this to say what, more exactly? It's
put-up or shut-up time.
Steve Dyer
]This statement really disturbs me. It is such a cold-hearted way to treat
]the justified rage of any people. I know lots of young male engineering
]students who feel exactly this way about the complaints of women's groups.
]They figure that they don't consciously act sexistly, so the people who are
]complaining are full of shit. They don't recognise their own unconscious
]actions, and don't acknowledge the advantages they routinely take for granted
]in their priviledged position.
I don't think I've seen this so well stated in a long time. Bravo.
--
Steve Dyer
dy...@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
dy...@arktouros.mit.edu, dy...@hstbme.mit.edu
arl...@puffin.uss.tek.com
>This statement really disturbs me. It is such a cold-hearted way to treat
>the justified rage of any people. I know lots of young male engineering
>students who feel exactly this way about the complaints of women's groups.
>They figure that they don't consciously act sexistly, so the people who are
>complaining are full of shit. They don't recognise their own unconscious
>actions, and don't acknowledge the advantages they routinely take for granted
>in their priviledged position.
... in a way, that shoe fits. by shoe i mean being of a majority that is
arguably priviledged.
i'm a married W.A.S.P. the first is my choice. the second is my cultural
heritage as well as choice. included with it are "unconscious actions" (if
they were conscious the could be changed, right?) and what's widely
acknowledged as a "priviledged position". plus assorted crap that married,
especially recently married people get, like ASS-umptions about what the
woman's name is or has become, and questions about having children, as though
that is *suddenly* a) important or relevant [do the inquirers know whether i
was a virgin when i married, or lived with the guy for five years?] and b)
Society's Business, now that we've decided to publically declare a commitment
to each other....
but i digress. what i wanted to talk about is: how can members of the
(defined) majority help? i've taken the initiative to learn a lot more than
i knew a year ago about GLBO oppression, and [conscious and otherwise]
oppression by christians and heterosexuals has been hotly discussed here
lately... but i haven't seen anybody suggest what us outsider-sympathisers
can do to help, either our GLBO friends, whom we want to support, or larger
oppressed groups, whether oppression is based on sexual orientation,
religion, etc.
maybe that question is answered farther along in this thread - i haven't
been able to keep up with this group lately. but just in case it hasn't,
i'm asking, from ignorance, not malice or sarcasm or some other dark purpose,
How Can I Help?
Arlene
--
Arlene Hills Peterson (Clarisse in SCA and other interesting company)
Work: Tektronix, PO Box 500, MS 50-453, Beaverton, OR 97075 (503)627-5417
Email: arl...@puffin.uss.tek.com
Jess Anderson
In article <90263.11...@CUNYVM.BITNET>
SE...@CUNYVM.BITNET (Jack Carroll) writes:
Although there have been a number of followups to this, most
of them at the neanderthal level of mentation typified by
Neil Marsh's recent "god `changed his [sic] mind' and
finally got it Right [just the point!] in the New Testament"
kind of pap, I have yet to see anything that addresses the
enormous culpability of Christians in committing authorized
mayhem on a scale that dwarfs the legacy of Genghis Khan.
The followups have refused to come to terms with the past,
present, and likely future leadership role taken by
Christians in systematic genocide worldwide, including as
specific targets, inter alia, all non-Christians, all
non-believers, and all non-heterosexual persons.
We are presented instead with the same old dogma about
the son of god, who died for our sins, and all that.
>I feel that it is necessary to consider Christian churches
>as a conspiracy of psychopaths and criminals based on their
>adherence to writings which are a well-spring of incitements
>to violence, murder, bigotry, hatred, genocide, etc., and a
>never-ending source of justifications for the most
>deplorable, repressive and mindlessly vile conduct
>imaginable.
On the day the misnamed "National" Cathedral is finished
(it's the Washington Cathedral, by the way) in the presence
of a president who doesn't consider non-Christians citizens
of the United States, further blurring the distinction
between church and state, it's good to remember that we are
among the most likely targets of the murderous impulses of
these self-righteous bigots.
>Any Christian church or cult which does not
>repudiate the inerrancy of the Christian scriptures and
>deplore the butchery done in the name of the god of the
>bible is clearly a potential hotbed of hatred and a menance
>to freedom.
At the very least!
>A group of people who can look to a skull-crushing, blood-
>drinking butcher god of the desert as the foundation,
>inspiration and support of their lives is thoroughly and
>completely rotted out morally. If the bible was another
>religion's scriptures the Christians would be branding it an
>obscenity and burning it.
Not one of our believers has yet faced this point ...
>Anyone who calls himself/herself a Christian must in my book
>be suspected as being unfit for public office, unfit to be a
>teacher, unfit to be a parent, unfit to be a neighbor.......
...nor this one, difficult though it is.
Ailsa N.T. Murphy
i agree completely. christianity has the blood of millions on its
collective hands, and any who join this religion, ESPECIALLY the
brands of christianity which say that YHVH WANTS the us to have a stong
military and such drivel, are transferring some of this collective guilt
to themselves. how can a person of good heart balance a belief in a
benevolant deity with the horrors perpetrated by his church? if hitler
had changed his mind and founded amnesty international, would that
make him lesss guilty of the deaths of millions?
until teh grip of christianity on this country is broken, destroyed
for all time, none of us will ever be free.
-ailsa
perhaps not the anti-
christ, as he seems to
have been a decent guy,
but certainly antiYHVH
Jay Schuster
>complaining are full of shit. They don't recognise their own unconscious
>actions, and don't acknowledge the advantages they routinely take for granted
>in their priviledged position.
This is a very good description of many non-*-ist people. The question
is, how many of those selfsame people understand it?
--
Jay Schuster <j...@pcc.COM> uunet!uvm-gen!banzai!jay, attmail!banzai!jay
The People's Computer Company `Revolutionary Programming'
Frank Maloney
>
>kind of pap, I have yet to see anything that addresses the
>enormous culpability of Christians in committing authorized
>mayhem on a scale that dwarfs the legacy of Genghis Khan.
>
acknowledge the vast multitudes and the many cultures destroyed
by the followers of Christianity's sister religions, Judaism
and Islam. They are all, in the language of Quran, peoples of
the Book, along with the Sabaeans, whom I personally miss,
as I'm sure you do.
Anyway, God/YHWH/Allah, told 'em to so it's ok.
Like the bumper sticker says: "Jesus said it, I believe it,
and that settles it."
Actually, I hate to see ol' Jesus dragged into this, since
he got himself offed for trying to buck the very trend of
which you complain.
Did you ever see _Jesus of Montreal_? One of the delights of
that highly revisionist movie is how clear it makes it that
Jesus was a trouble-maker, sort of the ACT-UP/Queer Nation of
his time and place. Forget that meek and mild stuff, this
guy was pissed. See, they had to kill him. (They being the
people in charge of keeping everybody nice.)
Right-wing religionists are my enemy. Centrists are
irrelevant. And leftists are pretty few and far between and
mostly involved in very non-main-stream stuff. But, hey, I
don't hate anybody.
But I sure as shit laugh a lot.
--
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
Disclaimer: Microsoft doesn't even know I have 3 middle names.
"I leave you now in radiant tranquility."
Neil P. Marsh
Carroll) writes:
> Although there have been a number of followups to this, most
> of them at the neanderthal level of mentation typified by
> Neil Marsh's recent "god `changed his [sic] mind' and
> finally got it Right [just the point!] in the New Testament"
Don't you think Neanderthal is pretty strong for someone who doesn't know me
at all?. I don't understand what the problem is here. I happen to believe
God changed. What's so Neanderthal about that?
> kind of pap, I have yet to see anything that addresses the
> enormous culpability of Christians in committing authorized
> mayhem on a scale that dwarfs the legacy of Genghis Khan.
I really wonder what drives you, Jack. I don't consider myself culpable in
ANY WAY for the crimes of Christianity. Because I choose, as my wife Tracy
has put it, to consider myself a Christian because of the teachings of
Christ, does not mean I advocate all that the organized religion does. I
despise some of the things organized christianity does in the name of the
Bible. I do not take the Bible seriously as far as the O.T. and the other
passages of hate so frequently quoted go. So why should I be responsible?
I hate what some christians have done in the past because I believe them to
have been wrong. But what do you want me to do? Do you want me to be
punished for what they did? I want to stop what's happening in this world
and YOU'RE working against me! I really wish I new what happened to make
you seem so hateful of people like me. I AM NOT ONE OF THOSE FUNDIMENTALIST
HOMOPHOBES!
Neil P. Marsh UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!drwho
810 W. Jackson Street <* Lepus Productions - Ebunny Hall Studios *>
Muncie, IN 47305 (1-317-747-0023)
"Dedicated to the oblitteration of bigotry and religious intolerance
everywhere..."
-- Me
Jess Anderson
>In article <90263.11...@CUNYVM.BITNET> SE...@CUNYVM.BITNET (Jack
>Carroll) writes:
You're attributing my stuff to Jack, Neil.
Jess Anderson
>All of this anti-christianity venom is certainly understandable in light
>of what some Christians have done to us, but I can't help but think it's
>unreasonable to expect them to rise above their intolerance if we can't
>do the same.
Ask some survivors of the Holocaust how they feel about
Hitlerism.
Neil P. Marsh
> In article <11...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> dr...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Neil P. Marsh) writes:
>
> >In article <90263.11...@CUNYVM.BITNET> SE...@CUNYVM.BITNET (Jack
> >Carroll) writes:
>
> You're attributing my stuff to Jack, Neil.
Yes, Jack wrote and informed me that I had misinterpreted the included
text. I apologize for anything that may have been implied about Jack in
this instance.
cjmc...@swift.cs.tcd.ie
In article dra...@mv06.ecf (SpIke) writes:
> In article rke...@gauss.unm.edu (Robert Kelly) writes:
>>... I looked at her with the same contempt as I do when
>>Black people tell me _I_ am oppressing them. ...
>
> [...]
> This statement really disturbs me. It is such a cold-hearted way to treat
> the justified rage of any people. I know lots of young male engineering
> students who feel exactly this way about the complaints of women's groups.
> They figure that they don't consciously act sexistly, so the people who are
> complaining are full of shit. They don't recognise their own unconscious
> actions, and don't acknowledge the advantages they routinely take for granted
> in their priviledged position.
>
> I would be cautious in rejecting such complaints. You can never be sure
> when your bigotry gets the best of you....
Spot on. The discussion on assuming somebody is straight because there is
a 90% chance that they are drove this home to me. I would advise (I advise
only because I have no power to insist) everyone, straight or gay, to read
"Loving Someone Gay" (and some other books on homosexuality). Absolutetly
fasinating stuff. Now I'll hopefully find the time to read some books on
feminism to see how I'm unconsiously being sexist.
Ciaran.
--
Ciaran McHale "An inappropiate joke for every occasion"
lio...@ecs.umass.edu
> zbd...@backus.trc.amoco.com (Brian D. Moe) writes:
>
>>All of this anti-christianity venom is certainly understandable in light
>>of what some Christians have done to us, but I can't help but think it's
>>unreasonable to expect them to rise above their intolerance if we can't
>>do the same.
>
> Ask some survivors of the Holocaust how they feel about
> Hitlerism.
Jess, you would seem to be saying that all Jews should hate Germany, and
call for the complete destruction of the German people, and never feel
safe as long as there is a German nation?!?
(if we were to project from your earlier postings about Christianity)
While I understand (I think?) your feelings toward _some_ "christians",
how _some_ "christians" act isn't necessarily what Christianity is
about, although I won't deny that most Christians consider
homosexuality morally wrong.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric C. McClure
lio...@umaecs.bitnet
Standard Dis
Chuck McCaffrey
>Jess, you would seem to be saying that all Jews should hate Germany, and
>call for the complete destruction of the German people, and never feel
>safe as long as there is a German nation?!?
And Clay Bond (bo...@spdcc.COM aka Asmodeus) responds:
Jess said nothing at all about Germany, the German people or the
German nation. He said "Hitlerism," not Germany.
Now as to all this "we have to be tolerant of the Xians if we
want toleration from them," one would have to really work hard to
come up with a more idiotic line of shit. They have been killing
us for hundreds of years, we do not have to prove a goddamned
thing to them. Kiss their shitty assholes if you like; they
always have liked it.
And I say:
But, Clay, the first word of your second sentence equates all
christians, and this is illogical. Not all christians "have been
killing us for hundreds of years." You are overstepping your
definitions. Rage is understandable, but make sure of your mark.
The christians at my church want neither for you to "kiss their shitty
assholes" nor for you to prove anything to them.
--
\Chuck McCaffrey cmc...@urbana.mcd.mot.com 1101 E University Urbana IL 61801
\ For the lonesome-hearted lovers with too personal a tale,
/\ And for each unharmful gentle soul misplaced inside a jail,
/ \ And we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing.
Jess Anderson
In article <10995.2...@ecs.umass.edu>
lio...@ecs.umass.edu (Eric C. McClure) writes:
>ande...@udder.macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>>zbd...@backus.trc.amoco.com (Brian D. Moe) writes:
>>>All of this anti-christianity venom is certainly
>>>understandable in light of what some Christians have done to
>>>us, but I can't help but think it's unreasonable to expect
>>>them to rise above their intolerance if we can't do the
>>>same.
>>Ask some survivors of the Holocaust how they feel about
>>Hitlerism.
>Jess, you would seem to be saying that all Jews should hate
>Germany, and call for the complete destruction of the German
>people, and never feel safe as long as there is a German
>nation?!?
Clay Bond has already pointed out your main misreading here.
I do not equate Germans with Nazis (the worst Nazis today,
for example, are probably those in the United States,
South Africa, and France).
But there is an important point to be understood here, I
think. I should stress that I am reporting what Jewish
friends have told me about their experiences and feelings;
my own family is not Jewish, so I am not speaking of myself
personally.
But a colleague at work is the *only* survivor of his entire
family, and he says he will never be able to set foot in
Germany again, because the pain is too great to endure. I
don't think he hates Germans, but Germany is the symbol of
an inextinguishable horror in his life. Other Jews I know
used to say they would never forgive the Germans for having
accepted Hitler, yet in time they relented and visited
Germany once again, even enjoyed its incredible museums and
concerts.
So with respect to Hitlerism, what we have is a
near-universal repugance and disgust at the systematized
depravity of that period. It is completely clear, I think,
that the regime could not have done what it did without the
complicity of millions of Germans. Perhaps it is limitation
of my spirit, but I can find no way to forgive that, or them.
But this is not the same as a blanket condemnation of all
Germans, or of Germany.
>While I understand (I think?) your feelings toward _some_
>"christians", how _some_ "christians" act isn't necessarily
>what Christianity is about, although I won't deny that most
>Christians consider homosexuality morally wrong.
Then I would repeat, assuming you agree, that most
Christians are in grave moral error and to that extent are
to be condemned, together with their institutions.
I've enjoyed my two weeks of relative absence from these
domains, and I think I've finished up with this topic for a
while. It will surely come around again, and we'll see if
there are any significantly different perceptions then.
lio...@ecs.umass.edu
> lio...@ecs.umass.edu writes:
>
>>Jess, you would seem to be saying that all Jews should hate Germany, and
>>call for the complete destruction of the German people, and never feel
>>safe as long as there is a German nation?!?
>
> German nation. He said "Hitlerism," not Germany.
My point exactly. *Some* Germans abused the Jews (Nazism), so we should call
for the destruction of all of them!????? NO! *Some* "Christians" have been
abusing the gay community, so we should call for the destruction of all of
them!????! No!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillel Gazit
(Chuck McCaffrey) writes:
>And Clay Bond (bo...@spdcc.COM aka Asmodeus) responds:
> Jess said nothing at all about Germany, the German people or the
> German nation. He said "Hitlerism," not Germany.
>But, Clay, the first word of your second sentence equates all
>christians, and this is illogical. Not all christians "have been
>killing us for hundreds of years."
Go back and *read* what Clay said.
Being a German is not a matter of choice, and so one can't blame
Germans for what had happened before they were born.
Identifying yourself with a movement that for a *long* time killed
Jews, Pagans and homosexuals is a matter of choice.
(If you want to be a member of religious community and distinguish yourself
from the past then you can always join a Church that permits homosexual
marriages, supports other gays' rights, etc. It is *your* choice.)
Jeff Putnam
>In article <10995.2...@ecs.umass.edu> lio...@ecs.umass.edu writes:
> Now as to all this "we have to be tolerant of the Xians if we
> want toleration from them," one would have to really work hard to
> come up with a more idiotic line of shit. They have been killing
> us for hundreds of years, we do not have to prove a goddamned
> thing to them. Kiss their shitty assholes if you like; they
> always have liked it.
>And I say:
>But, Clay, the first word of your second sentence equates all
>christians, and this is illogical. Not all christians "have been
>killing us for hundreds of years." You are overstepping your
>definitions. Rage is understandable, but make sure of your mark.
>The christians at my church want neither for you to "kiss their shitty
>assholes" nor for you to prove anything to them.
For me its awfully hard to distinguish among them. I have found _most_
professed christians to be fairly intolerant. That is, whenever someone
makes a point of their religion, I tend to believe (usually with
justification) that I'm going to be in for a hard time. (And it seems
to be mostly Christians who do make a point of their religion, though
I think many in other religions are probably just as nasty.)
Perhaps Im just a mite angry today. It turned out (we discovered
yesterday) that the guy who torched our signs, and who threw the
shaving cream into our meeting, was a member of the Baptist Student
Union and had just come from their meeting. (It turned out that the
topic at their meeting was "Love Thine Enemy" - are we the enemy?)
Also, the thugs hanging out outside our meeting were from them. Also,
we have heard rumours of threats from them. Also, they sent several
people to our meeting - for what purpose we still dont know (one of them
is reported to have claimed that she sensed an "Evil Presence" - I hope
it was me, I havent been an "Evil Presence" in quite a while.) I'm a
mite concerned about this, even if they dont carry out any threats,
they are scaring people away from our meetings and they are forcing us
to react to them rather than handling the other problems and stuff we
need to deal with to get the organization going.
Yah, Im pissed. At the bullshit baptists, at the catholics who have
made life hell for many of my friends, at Cardinal O'Connor who wants
aids victims to die in catholic hospitals so he can get money from NYC
taxes, at Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who sleaze money from people
to stuff their coffers and spew hate, at all those who read what they
want from the bible and ignore the messages of tolerance and love.
You want me to not judge all Christians by these folks. I agree, I
should, I should judge them all individually. But I dont meet them
all individually - and most of the _professed_ Christians I meet are
pretty loathsome and _very_ scarey. I know, I'm falling into the
same trap they are when they judge all homosexuals by whats said in
the bible. So, I'm human. (Well, sort of.) I'm trying to keep an
open mind (honest) but its real tough. Especially tough when so many
Christians dont seem to even know what an open mind is.
--
je...@jupiter.nmt.edu -- Jeff Putnam, New Mexico Tech, Socorro, NM
news
Path: rice-chex!nn
Eric Mcclure writes:
>My point exactly. *Some* Germans abused the Jews (Nazism), so we should call
>for the destruction of all of them!????? NO! *Some* "Christians" have been
>abusing the gay community, so we should call for the destruction of all of
>them!????! No!
Having sat on my hands for so long on this thread that they are
getting cramped, I'll throw in my share of anti-christian sentiment.
As a gay man, I notice that a good number of the opressing assholes that
do so, do so in the name of Christianity. Then along come some christians
who confide that they're not like that, and christianity isn't like that.
If someone from your group commits atrocities in your name, you tacitly
support that action unless you speak out against it. Not here, but in the
same places that the atrocities are committed; in the statehouse, in the
pulpit and to the media. I just haven't heard those comments in any quantity,
with the possible exception of the Unitarians.
Every year the Metropolitan Community Church applies for membership
in the National Council of Churches and is rejected by a large majority
of christians. Let us ask those whose claim their churches are not homophobic,
If someone from your group commits atrocities in your name, you tacitly
support that action unless you speak out against it. Not here, but in the
same places that the atrocities are committed; in the statehouse, in the
pulpit and to the media. I just haven't heard those comments in any quantity,
with the possible exception of the Unitarians. In particular, catholics
expect me to accept that they cannot denounce the behavior of their
church because it's bad form to critique the heirarchy.
same places that the atrocities are committed; in the statehouse, in the
pulpit and to the media. I just haven't heard those comments in any quantity,
with the notable exception of the Unitarians.
If you're offended by my presuming that christians
are in general homophobic bigots, tell me how your church voted, and
whether it would still be a member if the NCC had decided that Black Churches
were too sinful to be members. And show me that you've publically
disassociated yourself from those who claim that their bigotry is
the inevitable conclusion of their christian theology. At that point,
I'll concede that you, and your brand of christianity are not part of
the general offense.
Nick Nussbaum PO 68 - MIT Branch
n...@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu Cambridge, MA 02139
Rob Boldbear
>Being a German is not a matter of choice, and so one can't blame
>Germans for what had happened before they were born.
>
>Identifying yourself with a movement that for a *long* time killed
>Jews, Pagans and homosexuals is a matter of choice.
>
>(If you want to be a member of religious community and distinguish yourself
>from the past then you can always join a Church that permits homosexual
>marriages, supports other gays' rights, etc. It is *your* choice.)
What he said.
--
Rob Bernardo Mt. Diablo Software Solutions _ /
email: r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US phone: (415) 827-4301 <_/><
S0/8 b-/+ g- l y- z- n o a-- u+ v-- j- P6 B3 f+ t- dvcv sv w- m+ r+ p /
"There is no right 'not to be offended'." -Bob Culmer
Owen Rowley
>
> My point exactly. *Some* Germans abused the Jews (Nazism), so we should call
> for the destruction of all of them!????? NO! *Some* "Christians" have been
> abusing the gay community, so we should call for the destruction of all of
> them!????! No!
ahemm....
the Nazi party and its policys was put on trial, found criminal and
destroyed. ( or at least pretty effectively squashed)
The Catholic Church has NEVER been held accountable for the inquisition!
The office of the inquisition still exists today, Its head is
Cardinal ratzinger!.
Where have we heard his name before!
Oh .. he's the one advising the Pope and all Catholics that it OK to bash
fags!
The inquisition still lives, we are still targets, and I will still
fight them with every breath in my body!
I have no problem calling for the destruction of individuals or
organisations that call for the destruction of me and mine!
I think *some* christians have to look at their own fucking history, and
the destructive nature of *some* of their internal taboos, and have to
understand that they have no right to inflict their local taboos on those
of us that don't want 'em.
LUX .. owen
cjmc...@swift.cs.tcd.ie
foot in it.
In article <45...@dogie.macc.wisc.edu>,
ande...@udder.macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
> In article <10995.2...@ecs.umass.edu>
> lio...@ecs.umass.edu (Eric C. McClure) writes:
>
>>While I understand (I think?) your feelings toward _some_
>>"christians", how _some_ "christians" act isn't necessarily
>>what Christianity is about, although I won't deny that most
>>Christians consider homosexuality morally wrong.
>
> Then I would repeat, assuming you agree, that most
> Christians are in grave moral error and to that extent are
> to be condemned, together with their institutions.
As a Christian myself, I find what Jess said to be very hurtful.
But then the truth often is.
Ciaran.
--
Ciaran McHale "An inappropiate joke for every occasion"
Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Telephone: +353-1-772941 ext 1538 FAX: +353-1-772204 Telex: 93782 TCD EI
email: cjmc...@cs.tcd.ie or cjmchale%cs.t...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
My opinions are.
lio...@ecs.umass.edu
>>
>>>While I understand (I think?) your feelings toward _some_
>>>"christians", how _some_ "christians" act isn't necessarily
>>>what Christianity is about, although I won't deny that most
>>>Christians consider homosexuality morally wrong.
To which I have seen many interesting responses. I guess my point
in saying this, and other comments on this topic, is that many
Christian groups believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, but
they also believe that "we are all sinners" and that abusing gays,
or any other group for that matter, is also wrong (and in fact
more so).
*Some* people use this belief about homosexuality as an excuse to
foster their own ignorance and bigotry, and turn it into violence
against gays, which is what I was saying that Christianity is NOT
about.
Often the approach taken by "Church Leaders" seems "hard-line"
because they feel they must "hate the sin, but love the sinner",
but in talking about hating the sin, the love the sinner message
gets lost.
----------------
As a side comment to a spin on this thread, many posters have said
that anyone who freely associates themselves with a group assumes
the guilt for all the crimes committed throughout history in that
groups name. This seems a very dangerous approach for all involved,
for if we all do this for every group we associate with, we would
all soon drown in a sea of depression and guilt for all the crimes
committed in "our name". To some extent this is healty, but to
carry it to the fullness that has been implied doesn't seem fair.
e.g. Catholics should assume the guilt for all the crimes committed
during the Inquisition, etc. If we follow this course for every
group, the results would be staggering. Just consider the genocides
committed by the Jews in the old testament, the abuse of the American
Indians by the European Americans, the abuse of the Afro-Americans
by the Caucasians, the abuse of women by men, the abuse of gays by
hets, etc. etc. ad infinitum.
And few of us could claim to not benefit from the advantages we have
gotten from being a part of one abusive group or another. Must a
white male American assume the guilt for all the atrocities committed
by white male American's in the past just because he goes to college,
gets a decent job, and lives his life trying to be a "good" person,
thereby taking advantage of the postion he finds himself in? What
must he do to rectify this? What *could* he do?
I cower in fear at the thought that I could have to answer for this
to someone (God?) to justify my existence. Few could justify
themself against the weight of guilt which would weigh against them.
Chuck McCaffrey
writes:
In article <CMCCAFF.90...@thrumble.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
cmc...@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Chuck McCaffrey) writes:
>My church is supportive of gay rights.
Does you church make marriage ceremonies for gay couples?
_____
No, but we're working on it. Some individual churches have tried to
sanction gay marriages, but I do not know the results. I suspect that
this change will take time, but I am not going to reject the church
simply because "it" and I disagree on some issues. Rather, I will
continue to represent my point of view from my position in the church.
It's kind of like being gay. I don't agree with all the positions that
all gay people take, even the people within GLBO organizations I
belong to, but I don't stop identifying myself as gay and I don't quit
those GLBO organizations because of our differences. Rather, I voice
my opinion and work for change.
Hillel Gazit
>And what it says is quite good. On the whole, more good has been done by
>religion than by any other organization that exists, or ever has existed.
That's an interesting thing to say about the Catholic church that
had the habit of burning homosexuals, pagans and scientists, fought
*bloody* religious wars and divided the New World between Spain
and Portugal...
Methinks that the industrial revolution has done, in a shorter time,
more good than the Church had ever done.
Marq Rogers
>lio...@ecs.umass.edu wrote about how it is illogical to assume that
>all members of a diverse group share the same beliefs and the same
>guilt for the reprehensible actions of some members of a group:
>My point exacly. Some Germans abused the Jews (Nazism), so we should
>call for the destruction!????? NO! *Some* "Christians" habe been
>abusing the gay community, so we should call for the destruction of
>all of them!????! No!
and I wrote some ill-considered crap best forgotten.
to which Chuck replied:
>Right, the history of the christian church speaks for the history of the
>christian church, and nothing else. Active, participating, loving,
>caring, helping christians speak for themselves and for their beliefs
>every day. Many of these christians denounce the evil, current and
>historical, that has happened under the misappropriated aegis of christianity.
>The history of the church, especially the evil committed in its name,
>is not indicative of all the church, all the time, as represented by
>all the christians.
>Marq, you have committed an error in logic and grossly misrepresented
>the facts.
Consider this a public apology for my asinine behavior.
I allowed my dislike for the policies, past and present, of "the church"
to lose sight of my own principles. I ignored the fact that, today, there
is no "Church" to which all Christians owe allegiance, and that, today, to
be a Christian is a matter of personal conviction and interpretation. I
do not believe that there is anything inherently homophobic about Christianity,
although, as I understand it, Christian doctrine does condemn sexual activity
outside church-sanctioned marriage.
In the future, will try to think before I post.
----
pax,
Marq
Jess Anderson
In article <6567...@lear.cs.duke.edu>
ga...@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>In article <11149.2...@ecs.umass.edu>
>lio...@ecs.umass.edu writes:
>>On the whole, more good
>>has been done by religion than by any other organization
>>that exists, or ever has existed.
The stupefying ignorance of this remark takes my breath away.
Not one part of it can be substantiated in the slightest. Even
on the part (rather than the whole), and quite overgenerously
attributing the glory of Palestrina or of Giotto to the Church's
good offices, to say it has done more good than any organization
that exists is an historically and culturally arrogant remark
beyond imagining. To say "ever has existed" is to deny all
history prior to Christ (which is far and away most of it).
Truly, there's no bigot like the True Believer!
>That's an interesting thing to say about the Catholic church
>that had the habit of burning homosexuals, pagans and
>scientists, fought *bloody* religious wars and divided the
>New World between Spain and Portugal...
Another of your understatements, Hillel. You must be in a
mellow mood! :-)
>Methinks that the industrial revolution has done, in a
>shorter time, more good than the Church had ever done.
Well, I wouldn't call the record of the industrial
revolution any too wonderful, either. As the tool of the
Adam Smiths of this world it has extinguished a lot of
lives, and it is clearly history's greatest polluter. You
are, neverthless, probably right about its being less
murderous than the Church.
Frank Maloney
--
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
Disclaimer: Microsoft doesn't even know I have 3 middle names.
"He said, 'Vell, Zaphod's just zis this guy, you know?'"
Chapter 12, _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_
Frank Maloney
>In article <1558.2...@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> bro...@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems) writes:
>
>>Some previous posters have alluded to Unitarian Universalism. I belong
>
>Just as an interesting note, I have known *LOTS* of UUs, and
>without exception, they have not only objected to being called
>Christians, but were also rigid atheists (and I might also add
>that several of them were/are[?] ordained UU ministers.)
>
Would that is were unitarily and universalistically true.
I belonged to University Unitarian in Seattle for several
years, mostly because that's where Lyndol was going and had
friends there. The people were nice enough, rather in the
way that white bread is nice enough; but one does begin to
long for a little whole wheat, a little roughage, a little
browness in one's bread, doesn't one?
I sat out in the social hall during the services so I
wouldn't have sing recycled Cat Stevens songs and listen to
Peter Raible's sermons (even though he did fire off a good
one on homophobia and gay rights once).
There were definitely Christians there and agnostics, but I was
the only self-identified atheist that I knew about. There was
also one pretty obnoxious woman who was a Jew, but didn't
like the crowd at Congregation Beth Shalom in the next
block, and was always harping on the lack of ceremonialism
in the service. Kind of a high-church Jew in the way that
Peter was a high-church Unitarian--Christmas was a very big
deal. I asked him once where his pectoral cross was; he
wasn't amused. I also wanted to know why it was if the
church kept Christmas why there wasn't an Emersonmas or a
Servetusmas, exempli gratia.
Everyone was pretty relieved, I dare say, when we moved out
to Faraway Burien and it was too far to drive to church any
more.
Jess Anderson
In article
<CMCCAFF.90...@thrumble.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
cmc...@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Chuck McCaffrey) writes:
>Some Germans abused the Jews (Nazism), so
>we should call for the destruction!????? NO!
No one's calling for the destruction of Germans. Just
Nazism.
>And in article <1990Oct19.0...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
>mkr2...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Marq Rogers) writes:
>>No one chose to be a German, but many Germans chose to be
>>nazis. Can one say "I'm a firm believer in National
>>Socialism, but I'm not anti-semitic"?
One can, but anyone who believes it is a fool.
>>The history of the xian church speaks for itself.
Loud and clear.
>Right, the history of the christian church speaks for the
>history of the christian church, and nothing else.
Anyone who believes that is a fool.
>Active, participating, loving, caring, helping christians
>speak for themselves and for their beliefs every day. Many
>of these christians denounce the evil, current and
>historical, that has happened under the misappropriated
>aegis of christianity.
Misappropriated by what percentage: 95%, 93%, 91%?
Loving, caring persons who have Christ-predicated religious
beliefs would do well to denounce and utterly abandon all
institutions presently called Christian and start new
churches. I'd also recommend not calling these churches
Christian, since that label is ineluctably contaminated by
the filthy past of *all* such institutions up to some date
in the 20th centrury.
>The history of the church, especially the evil committed in
>its name, is not indicative of all the church, all the time,
>as represented by all the christians.
I'm sure there were some "good" Nazis, too.
>Marq, you have committed an error in logic and grossly
>misrepresented the facts.
An error in logic, if one has occured, is one thing; so far
in this discussion, you have proceeded without logic, and
that's quite another thing.
Saying most of our oppressors are Christians is not the same
as saying most of our oppressors are people, though both
statements are true.
Jess Anderson
In article <1990Oct27.2...@cbnewsm.att.com>
m...@cbnewsm.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
I will try to side-step the personal theology of Mike's
posting (it's his, and I am content with that), and I will
try to stay with parts that seem to me motss-relevant here.
I wrote:
>>Loving, caring persons who have Christ-predicated religious
>>beliefs would do well to denounce and utterly abandon all
>>institutions presently called Christian and start new
>>churches.
>There is an implicit assumption in Jess' remark that I have
>to take issue with. [...]
>The assumption is that religion is a matter of human
>construction and human choice, much like fashion in clothes.
I think it's *very* different from fashion in clothes, but I
do think it's a matter of human construction (only humans
have religions). Choice implies consciousness, in the sense
Michael means choice, and I think most people do not choose
religion as the result of a conscious process.
>In one sense, the new-age or neo-whatevers that have
>abounded in the modern West *are* a truth-claim that people
>make up their own truth as they go along.
Although I too think people make up their own truth as they
go along, I don't want new-age associations as an albatross
around my neck.
>For me, therefore, "association" with legitimate Christian
>churches is the ONLY alternative to living a lie (sort of
>like passing as straight.)
My contention is that there are essentially no such
legitimate churches, but clearly you don't agree.
>But I can't change religion like a change of clothes without
>trivializing religion.
Again, I must protest the (vague) implication that I was
trivializing religion; the analogy to fashion was yours, and
I believe it was inappropriate.
>Jess's assumption simply does not *work* in my context, or
>in that of other motssers who happen to be religious in some
>sense of that word approximating my own condition.
You're entitled, but I will probably continue to press for
examination and explication of the bases for religious (or
any other) institutions that express fundamental intolerance
for LGB people, even (as in this case) when I like the
people involved.
C. Richard Miller
>
>Saying most of our oppressors are Christians is not the same
>as saying most of our oppressors are people, though both
>statements are true.
I just grabbed this article 'cause I have a question about the subject
at hand.
Some time ago one of our San Francisco area scribes mentioned that
a large group of fungelicals would be decending upon the city to
rid rid it of undesireable spirits come Holloween, what's the latest
on this?
It would seem that by now the mainstream churches would have banded
together in some fashion to denounce this activity, since we are
constantly reminded of the non-homophobic nature of the majority
of xtians.
Has this happened? If so, can someone please paraphrase what they
had to say?
Waiting with batted breath.....
--
Rick Miller hhx...@mixcom.UUCP
4614 S. First St. #108 or uunet!uwm!mixcom!hhxxee
Milwaukee, Wi. 53207 (414)769-7021
Chuck McCaffrey
>Chuck McCaffrey wrote:
>
>Marq, you have committed an error in logic and grossly misrepresented
>the facts.
And Marq Rogers (mkr2...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu answered:
Consider this a public apology for my asinine behavior.
I allowed my dislike for the policies, past and present, of "the church"
to lose sight of my own principles. I ignored the fact that, today, there
is no "Church" to which all Christians owe allegiance, and that, today, to
be a Christian is a matter of personal conviction and interpretation. I
do not believe that there is anything inherently homophobic about
Christianity, although, as I understand it, Christian doctrine does
condemn sexual activity outside church-sanctioned marriage.
In the future, will try to think before I post.
----
pax,
Marq
And I reply:
No need to apologize. Different points of view can coexist. Public
discussion is a good way of figuring out which ideas are "better" than
others. As for your description of allegiance, personal choice, and
christianity, that sounds fairly reasonable and accurate to me, but
only if you lop off the fundamentalists. There is reason for rational
people everywhere, not just gay-lesbian-bisexual folks, to be angry
with and fight against the stupidity and hatred promulgated
incorrectly as christianity by the fundies. And perhaps some
Catholics. And perhaps anybody whose religious zeal and obediance to
some self-annointed authority clouds her or his ability to think
rationally and reasonably.
As for sexual activity outside of church-sanctioned marriage, very
likely it is against official church doctrines, but it is unreasonable,
and no reasonable person I know, christian or otherwise, believes that
human beings need to/are required to/should limit their sexual
activity to monogamous, heterosexual, marriage relationships. That's
just plain silly, to say nothing of being unhealthy. It is unnatural
for teenagers to have to "wait for marriage." It is unnatural for
homosexuals to be celibate in submission to ludicrous cultural bans on
same-sex sexual activities. Unnatural and unhealthy. (Safety is
another issue, worthy of great attention, but not to be confused with
mental and physical health.)
I just got back from the Bay area. I suppose I have a lot of mental
baggage to unload. Sorry if this posting got too long or pedantic. I
try to be reasonable. Love and hugs from the Midwest.
Chuck McCaffrey
someone else said:
>>The history of the xian church speaks for itself.
and then I (Chuck McCaffrey cmc...@urbana.mcd.mot.com) wrote the
following things preceeded by > prompts, and Jess Anderson wrote
the things without preceeding prompts:
>Right, the history of the christian church speaks for the
>history of the christian church, and nothing else.
Anyone who believes that is a fool.
>Active, participating, loving, caring, helping christians
>speak for themselves and for their beliefs every day. Many
>of these christians denounce the evil, current and
>historical, that has happened under the misappropriated
>aegis of christianity.
Misappropriated by what percentage: 95%, 93%, 91%?
Loving, caring persons who have Christ-predicated religious
beliefs would do well to denounce and utterly abandon all
institutions presently called Christian and start new
churches. I'd also recommend not calling these churches
Christian, since that label is ineluctably contaminated by
the filthy past of *all* such institutions up to some date
in the 20th centrury.
>The history of the church, especially the evil committed in
>its name, is not indicative of all the church, all the time,
>as represented by all the christians.
I'm sure there were some "good" Nazis, too.
Jess, much as I like you and I appreciate what you do on the net and
likely elsewhere, I must take issue with your stance. Again, you are
arguing that the church is monolithic and that every member of the
church bears the responsibility for actions of other members, distant
often in time and space. This is nonesense. Your analogy with nazism
is simply a weak attempt at reasoning by analogy that just doesn't
work. Your assessment that 90+% of christians are deluded and worthy
of our scorn is based on a number that you simply you pulled out of
the air. I understand your anger, and I realize that anger leads to
emotional rather than rational argumentation, but your arguments just
don't work for me.
Elsewhere in this article, you suggested that people who feel the need
to do the work that christ called us to do should distance themselves
from evil and start new churches. Well, perhaps that is a good idea.
It is also perhaps a good idea to find a church that works, like the
one I go to, and work within it to make it work better. You see, your
assessment that all christian churches are tainted simply is not true
in my experience. I am free to be me at my church. I am happy to be
a part of my church and be me. I am glad to help my church make the
world a better place for all people. I am glad to help the gay groups
I belong to make the world a better place for all people.
Chuck McCaffrey
In article <11149.2...@ecs.umass.edu> lio...@ecs.umass.edu writes:
____
I believe I understand where you are coming from and I can appreciate
your anger against the church, but don't you think it is kind of silly
and inapt to compare the church (and you seem to think that the church
consists only of the Catholic church) and the industrial revolution?
Reasoning by analogy is a great human gift, but if the analogy is
silly, then the reasoning is pointless.
There has been both good and bad come both of church and industry.
Entities (concepts? historical moments? philosophical movements?) as
large as these do not make for simple analysis and commentary. Better
to speak of individual churches and people and factories and
industries and industrialists and financiers. Frankly, I find the
concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a comparatively
few industrialists and financiers to be problematic, greatly
restricting the freedom of individuals, especially the underpowered
such as gays and women, and greatly damaging to the whole planet.
Like I said, I go to church, I like going to church, I like (most of)
the people at my church, and I am quite happy about my church taking
an activist role in my community. One church cannot negate the
concentrated evil of the past. But I doubt that my church is alone,
and I do not believe that the anti-church postings here apply to my
church.
To each, his or her own.
$Elaine_May
> a large group of fungelicals would be decending upon the city to
> rid rid it of undesireable spirits come Holloween, what's the latest
> on this?
>
> It would seem that by now the mainstream churches would have banded
> together in some fashion to denounce this activity, since we are
> constantly reminded of the non-homophobic nature of the majority
> of xtians.
confronted the 5000 or so fungelicals (sounds like a spotty growth :-)).
No mention was made of denouncement from mainline churches.
I used to be a fundie. I also belonged to several mainline churches
of various denominations. I think the mainline churches could give
a s--- about gays vs. fundies to tell you the truth.
Jim Williams
>
>And what it says is quite good. On the whole, more good has been done by
>religion than by any other organization that exists, or ever has existed.
>good FAR outweighs the bad.
>
>But there IS, and has been some bad, and members of this (or any other)
>group should stand against the bad.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Eric C. McClure
>lio...@umaecs.bitnet
>Standard Dis
I know I'll regret this but I just can't let that go unanswered. How
on Earth do you quantify the amount of "good" the Christian church has
done? Many people throughout history have done great and noble things
in the name of Jesus, but many people have also done great and noble
things in the name of Alla. Oops, sorry, you say above that "more good
has been done by religion...", and I took religion to mean
Christianity. I'm sure you meant all religions...
Anyway, I still consider it a meaningless statement because it is
totally unprovable. You simply can't quantify good or bad sufficiently
well to determine the overall net plus or minus. Does the "good" done
by countless monks who preserved learning and knowledge throughout
Medieval times outweigh the Spanish Inquisition? Are the charity
programs run by modern churches doing more good than the harm done by
the fundamentalist creationists who would cripple our children's
education by censoring their textbooks? IQ scoring methods look like
rock solid physics compared to quantifing this sort of thing.
You are welcome to try to convince me, but first you'll have to explain
how you determined to net good done by religion and the net harm, over
the entire span of civilization.
Jim, the ex-Presbyterian agnostic
Spoken: Jim Williams Domain: will...@nssdcs.gsfc.nasa.gov
Phone: +1 301 286-4405 UUCP: uunet!mimsy!williams
USPS: NASA/GSFC, Code 633, Greenbelt, MD 20771
Motto: There is no 'd' in "kluge"! It rhymes with "huge", not "sludge".
Jess Anderson
In article
<CMCCAFF.98...@thrumble.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
cmc...@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Chuck McCaffrey) writes:
>In article <47...@dogie.macc.wisc.edu>
>ande...@udder.macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes in
>response to some postings of mine on my local church and my
>personal experiences in the church:
To be fair, your lead sentence should be disambiguated. I
did not comment on your personal beliefs.
>>Some christian churches *are* that kind of evil. Their
>>members are responsible for it.
>And some aren't. That's all I was trying to say.
To disambiguate that, I take you to mean: some churches are
not that kind of evil. If you mean some members of (the
evil) churches are not responsible for that evil, I will
vigorously disagree.
>>In a subsequent posting, you give us details on where your
>>church is on some key issues. In it, you mention that even
>>your local church has a way to go and that the parent
>>organization has much further to go. So there remains some
>>question in my mind whether your church works as well as you
>>say it does.
>>I certainly appreciate the efforts of those who are working
>>toward progressive aims, but surely you can appreciate in
>>return that the old "give us time, we're working on it" line
>>is not very credible.
>Right. My church isn't perfect.
I take it as axiomatic that *nothing* is perfect.
>But it works for me, and I
>am not going to discard my relationship with the church and
>with God just because the institution is flawed.
What concerns me about this is that every member of every
church, no matter how flawed the church might be, can say
the same thing, which I would very much regret to hear.
I would then be active in criticizing the idea "works for
me" in that context.
>I suspect
>that there are precious few institutions or people that are
>perfect.
For purposes of discussion, perhaps we can agree that there
are no perfect institutions and no perfect people.
>Just as I do not discard people because they are
>imperfect, I do not discard my church because it is
>imperfect.
Discarding wrt to people and discarding wrt institutions
are two rather different activities, I think.
>As for some other thoughts you shared, I was just trying to
>say that it is illogical to tar all christians and all
>churches with the same brush simply because some (perhaps
>even most) are guilty of evil.
You understand, I hope, that I do not impeach *any*
christians unless they are overt oppressors as individuals,
still less do I "tar" *all* christians.
I do not impeach churches (among a number of institutions)
unless they are overt oppressors. With a very tiny few
possible exceptions (none ever having been demonstrated all
that convincingly), that would include all of the
traditional christian churches and most of the newer ones;
you admit it might be most.
So I don't think I've been illogical in the way you say,
because I haven't done what you seem to attribute to me.
>I don't think that it is a
>valuable exercise to try to quantify how much is good and
>how much is evil. Rather, find the good and work with it to
>increase the good.
I agree that quantifying good or evil is so difficult as to
offer questionable return on the effort. But qualitative
jusgments are far easier, because evil (oppression) is
extremely difficult to conceal from those who are oppressed.
I think it's very easy to find the bad and shun that. Of
course, one works to increase the good where one can.
But it's unlikely at this late date in history that very
many silk purses are going to be made from sows' ears. Why
not get some silk?
>I posted the stuff on official United Methodist doctrine
>because it was interesting and because I wanted to emphasize
>that it doesn't matter what the institutional church
>believes.
I wish that were true. Unfortunately, it is not true. It
makes a great deal of difference what the institutional
church believes, indeed *far* too much difference.
I have a very hard time understanding how a caring person
can claim, still less want to emphasize, the contrary.
>All that stuff in the book of doctrine is tainted
>by thousands of years of patriarchy and other crap. I
>recognize that.
Perhaps you do; I have no strong reason to doubt what you
say in that regard. But I think it's quite likely that the
thousands (hundreds, tens, whatever) of years of crap is
swallowed wholesale by the majority of believers. That
makes the institutions considerably more than tainted; it
makes them corrupt (ethically, morally) to their very cores.
>What matters is that I can have a
>relationship with the church and with God in spite of
>official doctrine.
Though I believe those are positions one might take a lot of
issue with, note that I do not do so. Nor have I in the
past. For the foreseeable future, opposing the institutions
and its uncritical adherents will take more than enough of
my time and energies. If I live long enough (and I don't
expect the effort to take less than several generations at
best), then I can start worrying more about the idea of god.
>As for "give us time, we're working on it," well, it appears
>to me that few changes happen instantaneously. To me, it
>isn't very credible to expect instantaneity. I am willing
>to work and to wait.
No changes happen instantaneously. No expects reality to be
completely otherwise all at once. To suggest that someone
does shows manipulative intent. All of us, I hope, are
working at making things better. Waiting is sometimes the
best one can get; then and only then should one be willing
to wait. I am quite persuaded that wrt today's christian
churches, there's far too much waiting going on.
Chuck McCaffrey
Jess Anderson says a lot of things, some thoughtful, some
contradictory. Perhaps we should agree to disagree off-line?
Your postings are becoming so long, that I fear my
responses might be disjoint or that they might overlook a point you
have made, which would instigate another round of postings/counterpostings,
and so on.
With love,
--
\Chuck McCaffrey cmc...@urbana.mcd.mot.com 1101 E University Urbana IL 61801
\ Flashing for the warriors whose strength is not to fight, [my words]
\ Flashing for the refugees on the unarmed road of flight, [my opinions]
/ \ And for each and every underdog soldier in the night,