From: ap290@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ruth M. Hanschka)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Subject: Re: amendment 2
Date: 8 Nov 1992 05:08:45 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, jthomas@netsys.com (Jim Thomas) says:

>In article <9211072031.AA11261@hela.INS.CWRU.Edu> "(Ruth M. Hanschka)" <ap290@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> writes:
>
>>the Bible condemns homosexual "relations", and the command given that
>>Christians are to love their neighbors no matter what.....
>
>
>What you're saying is that you believe *one* specific (and rather rigid)

No - I believe in *one* Book, of which every segment has at least two
different interpretations.  Some sections, however, are very specific.  If
that's rigidity, than so be it.  Suck it up, dude.:-)  That's the way life
goes.  We can't always have everything we want.

>interpretation. What you seem to call "Chistian-bashing" is resistance
>of those who are the targets of this interpretation. When Pat Buchanan

hardly - Christian-bashing is the persecution and condemnation of people
who happen to adhere to an unpopular set of beliefs.  Same as gay-bashing, it
seems to me.  Only in this little electronic community, it's a lot more
politically correct to bash Christians than gays or frankly anyone else.

>and Pat Robertson, who espouse an explicit view of some life styles,
>rail on against gays, you can bet there will be a response bythe
>victims of those tirades. For you, "Christian bashing" simply means
>your are criticized for bashing others. For gays, "gay bashing" means

What if they're right?  I don't like Pat Robertson much, and would cross
the street [almost] to avoid Buchanon, but we do agree on some things.  I feel
the same way about Jesse Jackson.  But, Jim, you're forgetting something -
a response to such things DOES NOT have to be another tirade.  It does NOT
have to be violent.  I have been roundly criticized for this sort of thing
before, to my face, but have not resorted to physical violence or real verbal
violence since I was twelve.  At that, it was only the second time in my
life I'd ever hit anyone.  If you want to discuss this, discuss it, don't
insult me while you're at it.  It tends to make me angry, and no one likes
me when I'm angry, including me.  

>denial of rights, discrimination, and violent victimization.

Sounds like what's been happening in here to me.  And if you don't think this
happens to Christians, ask Amnesty International what's been happening in
China.  Violence doesn't always have to be physical either - just what 
exactly have you been doing to me?  If this little accusatory letter of yours
isn't a form of violence, what is?

>You do not believe "what the Bible says"--you believe, as you admit,
>a narrow and bigoted interpretation of the Bible. That interpretation

No.  Wrong with a capital W.  Now what was I just saying about violence?
When I talk about sexual relations between same-sex partners being forbidden,
it's not interpretation.  Sodomy, or anal intercourse, is forbidden *by name*.
Don't argue with me, take it up with God if you don't like it.  I didn't 
write it, I just paraphrased it.  As for narrow and bigoted - hardly.  
Narrow maybe, but if you call it narrow, you're just agreeing with what the
New Testament says about the way to Heaven.  It's narrow all right.:-)

>demonizes some segments of the population. I have had sufficient

Again, wrong.  Demons demonize [and yes I do believe in those too] , humans
just act human.  btw - what you said up there could be construed as
blasphemy in some circles; the but about the word of God demonizing anything.
I wouldn't use that wording around a real fundamentalist if I were you.:-)
You call me rigid - to most Christians, especially the Buchanon types, I'm
a wild-eyed liberal.  Depends on who's doing the labeling, m'dear.

>experiences with such people--including an anti-gay incident at NIU--
>(with a faculty member) to suggest that there is a nasty consistency
>in views such as yours and a disingenuousness that is dangerous.

It's consistent for sure, but that nasty part means to me that you simply
don't like it much.  As for the disinenousness crack - I'm not even going
to allow myself to think about reponding to it.  And as a side note, I like
those anti-gay incidents even less than you do.  So go find someone else to
thow your own close-minded rocks at.  And you call *me* bigoted....sheesh...

>I refer you to your propensity for violence in threatening a physical
>assault on Graham.

Have you ever got a lot to learn.  See previous response.  I *said*, but you
didn't bother to quote, that I would be hard-pressed to resist slapping him.
I know my own limits, thanks, having had to hang onto them by the grace of
God more than once.  
>
>What you are calling "Christian bashing" is a hypocritical attempt to
>deflect attention from your own intolerance. It is *not* Christians

<sigh>  Repetitive, aren't you?  Is repeating it going to make it true?  No.
You will remember what started all this.  It wasn't my intolerance, but
Graham's, of an alternate viewpoint.  Does being different and unpopular
make it invalid?   The whole 60s Civil Rights [and 50s civil rights, and 40s
and 30s and 20s and......] got that same rap.  I ask you, which of us is a
hypocrite?  

>who are being attacked, but a narrow-minded minority who think they
>possess some transcendant "truth" that stigmatizes others.  
>In your view, "fag-bashing" is the will of "God?" And you wonder
>why you're flamed? 
>
<sigh> Can you really be this much of an idiot?  And here I thought you were
a decent person.  Truth frees, it does not stigmatize.  Love forgives, it 
doesn't bash.  And you used the word "fag", not me.  As for fag-bashing 
being the will of God; how can you even ask the question?  

>Jim (who believes in bashing bigots, not Christians) Thomas
<sigh>  Ruth "Christian, not Bigot, so go bash someone else" H

ps - is anyone else as sick of this as I am?
-- 
		###	Ruth Hanschka, the Nethead    ###
			- ap290@cleveland.freenet.edu
	      Where anything can happen, and it usually does
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU