From: max@cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Violating Christian's rights
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:45:48 GMT
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest of Beaverton Oregon

In article <Jan.17.23.04.44.1993.4035@geneva.rutgers.edu> mjb10@po.cwru.edu (Michael J. Bumbulis) writes:

>Agreed, but I don't intend on convncing anyone that there is a
>widespread agenda of persecution.  I am just concerned because
>I have sensed a growing intolerance against Christian belief
>and a tendency to assign Christianity to a cultural "reservation."

Don't confuse disdain with discrimination. All they have  in
common  is a prefix. This has all happened before, you know.
On previous occasions (e.g. in the 20's) the religious right
tried to "rechristianize" America, and faced increasing dis-
dain as the decade wore on.

After the first world war and the attendant social  changes,
people  were anxious and disoriented. Mass communication and
education had brought together wildly dissimilar &  immisci-
ble  mentalities, with a violent reaction. As is usually the
case, the participants siezed upon concrete enemies  against
which to define themselves.

Besides the attack on the teaching of the scientific  theory
of evolution, fundamentalists also campaigned to write their
moral stance into the law  books:  prohibition,  censorship,
loyalty  oaths,  morality bills. The latter regulated flirt-
ing, petting, and gossip!  In 1926 in Massachusetts saw  the
arrest and trial of Anthony Bimba on the charge of violating
a 17th century blasphemy law.  To be fair, some  baptists  &
methodists  objected  to  the  use of state power to achieve
religious goals.

37 antievolution measures were introduced, of which  5  were
approved.

Where they failed to  achieve  their  goals  via  scientific
debate,  they resorted to the ballot-box.  Where they failed
to  achieve their ends via the ballot-box, they tried  other
means.    William  Jennings  Bryan boasted of the number  of
educators  he got  fired.    Here   in   Portland,   Oregon,
they  stacked  the school board, which subsequently outlawed
discussing   evolution  -  even     private    conversations
between a teacher and a student were regulated.

The Bimba trial generated bad publicity for  fundamentalism,
just  as  the  Scopes trial did. By 1925, fundamentalism was
beginning to become synonymous with bigotry, ignorance,  and
disregard  for  fundamental  constitutional principles.  The
religious right was widely held up to  scorn  and  ridicule.
This disdain even extended, unfairly, to the "modernist" and
moderate churches that opposed them.

>...  But as I said, I do agree
>with your assessment.  It pains me to see Christians who seem to excuse
>gay-bashing because of their opposition to "gay rights."  In my
>opinion, many of the complaints of the gay community are not valid,
>but certainly their complaint about gay-bashing is.  By worrying about
>the threat to religious freedom that some gay rights stands seem
>to threaten, too many turn a blind eye to such violence.

The guilt of the religious right extends FAR beyond  silence
in the face of oppression.  No anti-gay christians died here
in Oregon during the divisive  struggle  against  the  OCA's
measure 9.  Several gays have. 5 blocks from my house, I saw
a pool of blood, where a gay was attacked by two men calling
him  a child-molesting fag - rhetoric whose origin is tracts
written  by  fundamentalists,  refuted  and   condemned   by
literally dozens of psychiatric & psychological professional
associations. The ink on their hands has become blood.

Here we come to my point. The abortion issue is one symbolic
issue  around which the religious right has gathered, but it
has become clear that the majority simply  will  not  accept
illegalization  of  abortion.  So,  they  began  looking for
another issue. I recall hearing a republican  mention  that,
and saying that the abortion issue had lost it's luster, and
that he expected the anti-gay rights struggle to be  a  much
better rallying point.

He is wrong. To nonchristians (+many  christians)  here  and
the  world over, it looks like exactly what it is - a way to
gather political power by evoking ignorant fears, and bully-
ing a despised minority.

>I would like to know if my perceptions are more than subjective
>and such examples would help.

You want tolerance? Be tolerant. Today 2 christians wrote me
to imply that no atheist could possibly have 'true values' -
(thank you so much) which puts  the lie  to their  claim that
their stress on family values is not exclusionary.

Let me here thank the many churches here in Oregon that stood
up to these people, and on the side of justice. It is a pity
that they aren't as visible as the OCA.

                Max G. Webb