Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian,net.religion.jewish Subject: The writings of Don Black Message-ID: <653@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Mar-85 12:12:55 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.653 Posted: Mon Mar 11 12:12:55 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Mar-85 09:10:42 EST Organization: Huxley College Lines: 44 Xref: watmath net.religion:5956 net.religion.christian:407 net.religion.jewish:1642 I've asked what I'm about to ask before, but perhaps it got swallowed up in the larger article of which the question was a part. So I'll ask again. Where have we seen the "christian" (to use Wingate's terminology) response to the articles of Don Black? In his articles, he has put forth a combination of intense hypocrisy, lies, and hatred, all in support of his very "christian" ideas. In response, what have we seen? One "christian" quoting scripture to *defend* Black's pronouncement of gays as scum in replying to an article that expressed dismay at the original Black article. Another "christian" supporting him in his labelling of any anti-racist force that works against the status quo as being antichrist and Communist. Quite a few non-christians offered rebuttal to Black's so-called "points", including a Jewish person pointing out that one of the subjects of Black's article about whom he expressed "concern" was a convicted Nazi. (Black had also commented on the "religious exhibits in public places" issue by sarcastically asking if he had "gone too far" by maligning Jews---as if to say that a Jews have control in determining what "goes too far", a favorite mouthing of the no holds barred religious right---Falwellism is nothing but an example of such a movement that has "cleaned up its act", condescendingly going overboard to say "See how we love the little Jews?") Back to the topic at hand. We have heard from the non-christians on the venom that Black has put forth. Where is the "christian" response? "charley" Wingate has oh, so often claimed that he is most certainly NOT allied with Falwell (though his attitudes would sometimes indicate otherwise), as have others, all of whom have lambasted ME for "attacking" all Christians and lumping them together with the reactionary religious right. Yet the silence itself speaks all too loudly. Do you have nothing to say about Black's statements? Are you too afraid to state your disagreement with (or distaste for) his notions? Are you too ashamed to state your agreement with them? Your silence is assent. Your quietism is acquiescence. Your closed-mouthness is consent. Your reticence is acceptance. Do you agree with what this man has to say? If so, why not be proud enough to say so, and to let us know why? If not, why not be forthright enough to say so, and to let us ALL know that you and others, as Christians, have only disgust and disdain for his notions of intolerance, of imposition on other people, of religious tyranny? I can only interpret not doing so as concurrence with the man's ideals. In which case, I can only feel very much justified in engaging in what has been called "attacking" with unprecedented fervor. Only, knowing what we would then know, "attacking" would hardly be the right word. The right word would indeed be "self-defense". As it always has been. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr