From: ap290@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ruth M. Hanschka)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Subject: Re: religious flames (was: amendment 2
Date: 9 Nov 1992 05:58:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ap290@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ruth M. Hanschka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, gtoal@PIZZABOX.DEMON.CO.UK (Graham Toal) says:

>
>I always knew Ruth was a Christian - I thought she was a Christian of the
>raditional innocuous kind, but she outed herself as a fundamentalist
>literal-bible believer.
>
Actually, you keep labeling me a fundamentalist; I never did.  That word has
taken on a lot of really bad connotations over the years.
>
>Those who take the bible literally all follow the party line, as Ruth has
>shown quite conclusively in her subsequent posts.  My assumptions about
>her were spot on.
>
No, it showed that your prejudices against Christians were proof against
arguments.  You keep accusing me of following a party line - the truth is
I only do when the party line agrees with what Jesus taught.  It doesn't
always, especially iff you're talking looney-right Bob Jones types.

>So you think that's a valid point?  Like Hitler loved Jewish people, but
>just hated them practising their religion?
>
Graham, cut it out.  That's crap and you know it; if you don't by now I might
as well give up talking to you.  You're not listening.
>
>: She did NOT equate alcoholism with homosexuality, nor did she offer at any
>Yes she did.  That was the whole bloody point of her post.
>
Repeating bull over and over doesn't make it so, Graham.  It's still bull.

>Where's that quote about 'First they came for the gypsies' when you really
>need it?  It's people with the exact same views as Ruth who tried to push
You don't need it; it's non-applicable.  I'm no more a nazi than you are;
the Gestapo would have concentrated you, most likely, and shot me.  Find 
another label to throw; that one won't wash.

>that bigoted tripe through the Oregon legislature.  What frightens me is
>that Ruth *is* a gentle likeable person.  When oppressive views are held
>by 'nasty' people it's a lot easier to see who you're fighting, but if
>discrimination has worked its way down to the 'reasonable' masses in the
>shape of people like Ruth, it's time to start worrying.  Even if Ruth
>wouldn't have voted for OR9 (I suspect she would have abstained to keep
>her conscience clean - I bet she wouldn't have voted against it, right
>Ruth?) she's complicit in fostering the bigotry behind it and making it
>more acceptable to the masses.
>
I guess there's no real point to this, if that's how you think of me.  You're
wrong by about 99%, but just try and get that through the wall of prejudice
you've got built.  I'm sick of bruising my skull on the bricks, frankly.

>
>: How does that make me a hypocrite?  Neither Ruth, nor I, nor the other
>: believers on the List have made a secret of our vaues.  We've managed to
>: respect, tolerate, and otherwise get along with each other, just as we have
>: with our other <philosophical> differences.
>
>You're making a mistake aligning your views with Ruth's.  I *know* you
>are tolerant of non-traditional sexualities.  I don't see that in Ruth.
>
I know you don't - you're not looking.  You're just reacting, not reading,
and most assuredly not understanding.  I on the other hand, understand where
you're coming from very well.  I just don't happen to agree with it.

>
>Yes.  Admitted.  As soon as I saw Ruth's e-oops which showed which flavour
>of Christian she is, I knew that she'd toe the party anti-gay line. She
>follows the rule book to the letter, and has said so herself.  There's a
>whole lot of baggage goes along with that approach and I've seen it all
>before.  Everything I read between the lines she's confirmed most volubly.
>
Anti-gay, Graham?  More like anti-sin.   There is a huge fundamental [if I
can use the word] difference between the two.   If you don't see how that 
might be possible, I'm sorry for you. 
>G
>: <disgustedly> -- bayla
>Ditto. Graham.

And saddened. -Ruth


-- 
		###	Ruth Hanschka, the Nethead    ###
			- ap290@cleveland.freenet.edu
	      Where anything can happen, and it usually does