From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Gay teens, suicide, and Christianity
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 20:19:11 GMT

In article <92106.114646SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>My opinion and assertion is that both the Jewish scriptures/Christian
>OT and the Christian NT contain contain strong strands of emphasis
>which serve to generate many kinds of harmful conduct, and that not
>to disavow these strands is in essence to contribute to a mentality
>which will generate more bloodshed, more intolerance, etc.

I feel that your original postings were incitements to bloodshed and
intolerance.

>If someone identifies him/herself as a Christian or a Jew and feels
>that all conduct done by the scriptural "good guys" or all of the
>laws and admonitions attributed to these "good guys" are estimable,
>then I most certainly would _not_ put my faith and trust in such
>a believer and I would and do encourage others not to do so.
>
>On the other hand those Christians and Jews who take pains to
>search throught their traditions and specificly and overtly reject
>the strands of their tradition which so emphatically embrace
>war, bloodshed, death, etc.  and seek to make a coherent personal
>faith from the positive, loving, life-embracing part of their
>scriptures most certainly are trustworthy.

Conduct done by the scriptural good guys?  What conduct done by the scriptural
good guys?  The Old Testament is not the only book used by Jews, and what Jews
believe the conduct of its "good guys" to be cannot be found by reading it
alone.

Suppose I were to say "homosexuals should all disavow the homosexual practice
of child molestation".  You would be perfectly right in considering this to
show prejudice towards gays.  The fact that I am only condemning gays who are
child molesters and seemingly willing to accept gays who disavow child
molestation makes no difference; it's still prejudice, since by requiring that
gays disavow child molestation, I imply that most other gays accept it, an
implication which is itself prejudicial.

Now, suppose I were to say something like "all those damn bloodthirsty queers
who wish to buttfuck and slaughter our children are a danger to us all".  You
would be certainly right in considering _that_ to be intolerant, hateful, and
prejudicial.  Even though it only, taken literally, expresses hatred towards
homosexuals who molest and kill children, everybody knows that because of the
hateful way in which it is expressed, what it _really_ is is an accusation
towards _all_ homosexuals.  You're not going react "oh, he's only angry about
gays who kill children, and I'm not one of those, so it doesn't concern me".
The use of buzzwords charged with hate indicates that the person making the
statement is speaking as a bigot.

You did essentially the same, only with Jews and Christians as targets.

I'm not a mind-reader.  If you speak like a bigot, expect people to react like
you are one.
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)