NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/bi/17318

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-25 | 9.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!uknet!qmw-dcs!arodgers
From: [e-mail] (Angus H Rodgers)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Throwing Christians to the Bunnies (was: Understanding)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Dec 92 05:16:51 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News System)
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London
Lines: 200
Nntp-Posting-Host: safety.dcs.qmw.ac.uk

In <[e-mail]>
Graydon <[e-mail]> writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>,
>[e-mail] (Ciaran McHale) says:
>>
>>Two questions spring to mind about this:
>>
>>1. Does anybody have further examples of non-X folk thinking that X-folk
>>are anti-(non-X), e.g., gays are against heterosexuality, feminism is
>>anti-male, blacks are anti-white? (I am wondering how widespread this
>>idea might be.)
>>
>>2. Does anybody have any ideas about why such notions exist? Is it a
>>result of poor communication resulting in fundamental misunderstandings?
>>Or is it that the bigots are spreading misinformation to create fear of
>>change?
>>
>>[...]

>The example that springs to mind is the reaction of most white-light-and
>-bunnies pagans to the word 'Christian'.

Good example [although I don't know how one is supposed to distinguish
the "white-light-and-bunnies" pagans from the other kinds -- if, indeed,
there are any other kinds].

I don't even know if I'm a "pagan" [is the term more specific than "non-
Christian"?]; but I do believe that all Christians are anti-non-
Christians; so I could reasonably be accused of being bigoted against
Christians.

My impression is that all Christians assume that Christianity = Absolute
Morality; and therefore they believe that all non-Christians are guilty
of something; and they don't scruple to play on any sense of guilt that
any particular non-Christian may have.

Guilt, especially about sex, seems to be the motive force of this religion.

This belief of mine about Christianity may be false; and by expressing it,
I am opening it to refutation, especially because I am giving the rather
shaky and informal argument which causes me to believe it, which is:

(1) There exists a Y such that the state of mind called Christianity
    *is in its very essence* a moral rejection of Y, i.e. to be a
    Christian *is* to believe that Y is wrong (without necessarily
    being able to say what Y is);
(2) Also, every Christian knows (1), even without necessarily being
    able to formulate it;
(3) By (1), anyone who is not a Christian is therefore not anti-Y;
(4) And by (2), every Christian knows (3);
(5) But, by (1), anyone who is a Christian thinks that Y is bad;
(6) By (4) and (5), anyone who is a Christian thinks that anyone who is
    not a Christian is failing to oppose a bad thing;
(7) By (6), any Christian must find some moral fault in anyone who is
    not Christian.

I didn't follow the recent thread elsewhere in which Zeleny explained,
yet again, for the world's benefit, why homosexuality is an intrinsic
evil; but, for the benefit of anyone who did wade through some of his
turgid and tumescent prose (occasionally enlightened by flashes of humour
from others, including Erin Zhu!), it is worth remarking that my argument
against Christianity has a similar (if much simpler and less specific)
form to his.

(And perhaps [therefore!], it is equally wrong. I certainly haven't
always felt this way about Christians -- in spite of a bad start to
the relationship, growing up in Northern Ireland in 1952-1970.)

In brief, I regard Christianity as essentially something negative: just
as MZ regards homosexuality as something essentially negative.

But neither a Christian nor a homosexual regards hir own calling,
or nature, or sentiment, as essentially negative; on the contrary,
sie [ugh! -- oh well, must try it out] has strongly positive feelings
about it.

[I'm pleased to report, BTW, that I'm starting to have nice feelings
about being gay! It could be a happy Christmas for me after all!
Thanks, soc.bi! *big wet kiss* :-) ]

Therefore, any attribution of negativity must involve some
(not necessarily a Freudian) *interpretation* of the state of mind
in question.

Returning to the general question, I don't think that the general
(non-X)-who-thinks-that-X-implies-(anti-(non-X)) necessarily thinks
in this way because sie [ugh] makes some conscious interpretation of
the possibly unconscious meaning of state of mind X.

Rather, in the cases which Ciaran mentions, I am strongly inclined
to seek a critical interpretation of the phobic state of mind:
   phobe(X) := non(X)-who-thinks-that-(X-implies-anti(non(X))),
rather than of state of mind X itself.

This is so even though one of Ciaran's three examples is different
in kind from the other two: because I would argue that feminism is
intrinsically a reactive state of mind -- something like anti(anti(
female)) -- and there is no analogy between the sentiment "feminism
is anti(male)" and the sentiment "blacks are anti(white)", for example,
because, simply, "male" =/= "non(feminist)". (An exactly analogous
sentiment *would* be "females are anti(male)".)

Feminism *is* anti(non(feminism)) -- and rightly so! So phobe(feminism)
is not to be distinguished from non(feminism); or, to put it another
way, "If you're not with us, you're against us" -- a sentiment with
which, for once, I agree.

I could quibble some more. :-) :-) :-)

(A) For instance, if, as one of Ciaran's examples seems to presuppose,
heterosexual = non(gay), then gay = (bi OR homosexual); so a revision
of terminology would be in order.
*I'd* be happy enough with this (re-)definition of "gay"; but I doubt
if any (exclusive) homosexual would, because it would leave herm
[double ugh] stuck with that horrible Latinate label again; so it
would be better to leave gay = homosexual, and think up some
alternative for non(heterosexual) (and, while we're at it, for "bi").
I'm not making any serious positive suggestions here; just alluding
to the difficulty. (Or making mischief.)

(B) And there is a case for not using the word "feminist" as I have
been using it; and for using ~pro-feminist" instead.
But I think that this would lead to more complicated definitions,
because you would have to define things ass-backwards, thus:
      pro(feminist) := believer in [something-or-other about women
                       and men],
      feminist      := (woman AND pro(feminist)).
I suppose one might alternatively define:
      feminist     := woman struggling for justice for women [?],
      pro-feminist := [male?] supporter of feminists;
which somehow suggests that men cannot truly *struggle* for women's
rights, which may be true. Also it leaves the definition of
"feminism" less open, which may be a good or a bad thing.
I'll leave the arguments to others; I just felt like having a
quick quibble, while we were on the subject.

I'll finish with a quotation which I think is relevant:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

From misc.kids Mon Dec  7 22:24:55 1992
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: The P.A.T. program.. Family Facism Flourishes.. (LONGER)

[...]

These articles are reprinted with permission of the author for as wide
a distribution as possible.

[...]

In Loco Parentis Part II
by Laura Rogers
Chronicles Magazine pp45-48
September 1992

[...]

At one point in the meeting Lois Linton showed us an article from the
Schlafly Education Reporter about the National Association for the
Education of Young Children (NAEYC).  The article reported explicit
examples showing the organization's bias against Christians and in
favor of a lesbian/homosexual world view.

[...]
               [...] A keynote speaker told the conferees how wonderful
things were in China, where children go to school all week long and only
go home on the weekends.  And I learned from these professionals that
the way unwilling parents could be FORCED TO PARTICIPATE in the state's
child/family management system was through the referral of a professional
(DOCTOR, TEACHER, PRIEST) or a charge of child abuse or neglect (ANNONYMOUS).

[...]

Mildred Winter continues to claim that the PAT program is "voluntary,"
Don't believe it.  It isn't voluntary to you, the taxpayer who funds the
program, and to the many young and inexperienced parents who are unaware
that they are being drawn into the black hole of national socialism.
But, of course, it couldn't happen here....

--

Darren Swartzendruber            Internet: [e-mail]
Northern Telecom NAS        Packet->Internet: [e-mail]
Rochester, NY
                      Jesus is the Lord of my life!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And what am I doing here, at college, at 5 o'clock on Christmas morning,
with no transport home to be with my wife and daughter on Christmas day?

That's another story -- but one which is not(un(related)) to the present
message! :-)
--
Gus Rodgers,  Dept. of Computer Science, |  [Profound thought for 1993]
Queen Mary & Westfield College, Mile End |     "Philishave is about
Road, London, England.   [phone] |      personal choice"
E-mail (JANET):   [e-mail] |             -- TV advert