Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 06:17:22 -0800
From:         Graham Toal <gtoal@PIZZABOX.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: religious flames (was: amendment 2
Comments: To: WORDS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

: All Ruth "revealed" in that e-oops was that she's a Christian, something
: nobody who's been paying any attention will be surprised by.

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.

: Graham, smarting from some other source, immediately equated Christian with
: hypocrite, gay-basher, discriminator, and bigot.  I can't quite blame him,

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.


: Ruth got insulted.  In an effort to explain the difference between 'loving
: the person' and 'hating the behavior' she used the example of alcoholism.
So you think that's a valid point?  Like Hitler loved Jewish people, but
just hated them practising their religion?

: 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.

: time to 'save' Graham or anyone else, nor did she defend bigots nor
: identify with them.
I think she identified with them most strongly.

: jim thomas thought she had, and slammed her for it. (Were this a humorous
: situation, I might make remarks about 'knee-jerk liberals', but in this
: case I would be severely misunderstood.)  *All* our knees are jerking, and
: it's not funny at all.  jim's got a point: rehetoric similar to ruth's has
: cloaked bigotry often enough.We haven't seen any bigotry from Ruth, though,
: and she ought to have the benefit of presumed innocence until *she*
: commits a bigoted posting.  What she's done so far has been to defend
: herself and try to illustrate her own beliefs -- not to push them on others.

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
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.

: As you all know, I too hold some deep-seated beliefs.  Do I think Ruth's a
: sinner?  Sure.  Graham? yup.  Me? You betcha.  Do remember, please, that
: while the Christian God is supposed to be all-loving and all-forgiving,
: -my- God is popularly supposed to be a fire-breathing bigot.  However,
: there seems to be room enough in God's love for all us sinners.  Re-read
: Exodus if you think the Hebrews were an easy people to loove!  I can almost
: -hear- the (anachronistic, I'm sure) Yiddish accent to the whining: What's
: the matter, there weren't enough graves in Egypt, you had to bring us out
: -here- to die?  Fortunately, God turns out to be just as stubborn as anyone
: else: the chosen people stay chosen, like it or not.  And while I'm at it
: -- chosen for what? some sort of favorites?  No, it's chosen to bear the
: burden of the Law, to be an example to other nations, and heaven will most
: definitely *not* help us if we stray!

: 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.

G
: Okay, if you still want to <vomit> all over each otheer, go right ahead.
: Just don't think you're <being logical> or <responding to what's been
: -posted->.  You're all <reading between the lines>.

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.


G
: <disgustedly> -- bayla
Ditto. Graham.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU