[Vision2020] Hate Speech on your forum

Fri Jun 2 19:07:04 PDT 2006

There were some good points in Chas' article, and there are some great 
points in Michael's post.

There's not a lot of anything rational in Dick's complaint.

I'll be the first to object if someone posts something calling for the 
execution of all Bible-believing Christians, but only because I object, too, 
to posts calling for the execution of . . . well, anyone.  I don't feel at 
all threatened by anything I've ever read on Vision 2020, and as a 
theologically conservative and passionate follower of Christ, I've found 
that even the people who detest my faith have been kind to me.  I don't 
think they're winking at me while seeking out other Christians to harm, and 
I've read enough hate speech on Vision to recognize it once it manifests 
itself.

There's nothing sweet in the bitter irony of Dick's having been among those 
who've tossed out hate bombs on this forum.  His complaint, both to First 
Step and to the State, is ludicrous and worthy of its inevitable resting 
spot -- posted on the refrigerator in the employees' lounge, right next to 
Dilbert, the Far Side, and News of the Weird.

keely

keely

From: "Michael" <metzler at moscow.com>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Subject: [Vision2020] Hate Speech on your forum
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 18:55:22 -0700

Thanks for the article Chas.  It was a good read. I think it is a bit
misinformed about traditional forms of Christianity, but I think it nails it
on some contemporary issues.  It is contemporary concerns such as these that
folks like Brian McLaren seek to address. American, politically minded
Fundamentalists can be some of the most un-Christian folks on the planet,
and it is interesting indeed when they approach scripture as some sort of
Law-Code in the sky and the ecclesia as still shivering in front of Sinai.
But in this respect I disagree with Slater's concern about 'story.'  There
is a 'story' to be told about Jesus, love, and mercy, just as there is a
story to be told about the abolishment of slavery and condemnation.  The
problem is not that fundamentalists only believe 'a story' but rather they
don't get the story right; and further, this is due to their inability to
see scripture as precisely that: a story, and one that is reflective of an
essentially storied world, a world that will continue that story regardless
of whether or not narratives are written about it-what C.S. Lewis called the
Myth.  I hope Dick enjoys his litigation.  Sounds like you might have hit a
nerve.  Good work.  Considering I'm a fundamentalist Christian, I suppose
I'm more immune to the legal charges?  Hope so.

Michael Metzler

----- Original Message -----

From: rvrcowboy <mailto:rvrcowboy at clearwire.net>

To: owner-vision2020 at moscow.com

Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 7:40 PM

Subject: Hate Speech on your forum

Dear Sir,

I have been a subscriber to your Vision2020 forum for several weeks.  During
that time I have witnessed, and participated in several discussions that
became heated and hotly debated.  That is all right, after all we are all
entitled to our opinions.

Now, one of your subscribers is posting materials of an inflamatory nature
against a specific segment of the subscribers on the list.  This hate speech
is aimed at Christians, Fundamental Christians specifically, but all
Christians in general.  This individual has admitted to being atheistic many
times, which is his right.  However, he is now posting materials aimed
directly at Christians with the intent of creating a hostile atmosphere on
the forum.

This is my formal complaint to you about this matter.  I am also filing a
complaint with the Idaho State Attorney General's Office concerning this
matter.  I have personally emailed several people I know to be Christians
subscribers to your site and requested that they not respond to this
vindictive post.

The specific post is from a subscriber known as "Chasuk" and was posted on
6/1/2006 at 3:49pm.  It is copied in its entirity herein:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-slater/the-great-fundamentalist-_b_2194
4.html

by Philip Slater

THE GREAT FUNDAMENTALIST HOAX

Thoughtful Americans have long wondered how it is that fundamentalist
Christians--followers of someone who preached pacifism and
tolerance--became the poster boy for hate speech, touting "moral
values" indistinguishable from those of the Taliban. They wonder why,
for example, fundamentalist Christians so seldom quote from the New
Testament--which is supposedly what Christianity is all about--but
prefer citing the Torah and Old Testament prophets.

One reason is that the Old Testament is full of murder,
vindictiveness, and genocide--all supposedly ordered by God. So when
fundamentalists want a Biblical excuse for hate speech and hate
crimes--which they seem to need with considerable frequency--they turn
to Old Testament sources.

Christian homophobes, for example, carry signs saying 'God hates
fags', which they justify by claiming that Leviticus 18:22 (condemning
male homosexuality as "abomination") is the 'word of God'. Yet more
than a third of the entire book of Leviticus is devoted to God's
detailed instructions on the proper manner of making burnt offerings
of animals to Him. (The rest deals with keeping Jewish dietary laws,
avoiding pollution from inadvertent contact with menstruating women,
forbidding haircuts and beard trimming, justifying slavery, and saying
anyone who swears should be stoned to death). Why doesn't God hate
those who fail to make offerings in the exact manner He so carefully
spelled out in chapter after chapter? Since fundamentalists feel
comfortable ignoring 95% of the 'word of God' in Leviticus, why have
they latched onto this isolated phrase? If "God hates fags", then God
must feel positively murderous toward people who don't make burnt
offerings of animal carcasses in the precise manner so carefully
indicated, and in such extreme detail. (God must also hate people who
eat lobster, shrimp and pork, which are also "abominations" according
to Leviticus).

It's startling, in fact, how rarely fundamentalist Christians mention
the sayings of Jesus. 'Morality' to them means the sexual inhibitions
of ancient Middle Eastern patriarchies. They seem to be nostalgic for
the pruderies of the 1950s, when the Hays office decreed that movies
couldn't show pajama-clad married couples in bed together lest it
incite teenage moviegoers to fornication. This obsession with
sexuality is surprising, since Jesus seemed to have very little
interest in the topic. In the four Gospels there are only four
statements about sexuality, and these deal with adultery and divorce
rather than sex per se. That is, with relationships--with causing
injury to another.

Compare this with the nineteen statements Jesus makes about the
importance of giving, and the value of divesting oneself of money and
possessions. Yet we seldom hear fundamentalist Christians saying it's
easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich
man to enter heaven. Or quoting the ten statements exhorting us to
turn the other cheek--a Christian idea that seems to be anathema to
hate-filled fundamentalists.

The Bible becomes the 'Word of God' when a bigot wants to use it to
bludgeon his neighbor, and a mere archaic relic when it would be
inconvenient for him to take it seriously. Fundamentalists of all
persuasions--Christian, Muslim, Jewish--often manage to find some sort
of backing for their hatreds in their sacred texts; for these texts
were written in societies that were misogynistic, militaristic, and
rigidly authoritarian--written, furthermore, by men who believed the
earth was flat.

The reason why so many fundamentalist Christians are so notoriously
"unChristian" is simple: for the majority of Christians (Quakers are
among many notable exceptions) Christianity isn't about the teachings
of Jesus, and never was. The early church fathers knew that Jesus'
rather Buddhist message of nonviolence and voluntary poverty wouldn't
fly in the Graeco-Roman world, let alone in the Middle East. The idea
of a Redeemer on the other hand--someone who would voluntarily
sacrifice Himself for humanity and their sins--was very popular.
Instead of having to give up their worldly goods and espouse
non-violence, all the Romans had to do was believe in the miraculous
stories surrounding Jesus' birth and death, which was easy for them,
since such stories had been told about pagan gods and heroes and were
already familiar.

Christianity as it exists among fundamentalists isn't about behaving
like Jesus. It's all about faith--about believing the story. The
underlying message seems to be: you can behave any way you want as
long as you believe the story and say you're sorry before you die.
Following the teachings of Jesus is much too demanding, whereas with
the Christianity of fundamentalists all you have to do is shut your
mind off.

There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually
follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word "Christian" has been
largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by
fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite:
intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry.

I trust you will handle this matter quickly and discretely.

Sincerely

Dick Sherwin

208-743-0604

_____________________________________________________
  List services made available by First Step Internet,
  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
                http://www.fsr.net
           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/