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