NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/talk/abortion/36435

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-14 | 9.2 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:36435 talk.religion.misc:16202 alt.atheism:17192 talk.politics.misc:45379
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!mmm.serc.3m.com!pwcs!chrisl
From: [e-mail] (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: blasphemy
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET news administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: krang
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:50:53 GMT
Lines: 171

In the late 1800's, a Captain Dreyfuss was railroaded into prison by the French
Army for espionage, although no credible evidence was presented at his trial.
It actually seems that Dreyfuss' sole crime is that he happened to be Jewish.
The sordid details of his trial and conviction were eventually published in a
Paris newspaper under the banner headline "J'ACCUSE!"  Because of the powerful
repercussions the story made in French politics, the phrase "J'ACCUSE!" took on
an almost incantatory meaning.  "J'ACCUSE!" has been used to headline stories
of prejudice and injustice many times.

[e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:

> NBC news last night carried a brief account of a letter, accompanied by
> a short statement by Joan Campbell, of the National Council of Churches.
> It did not say what sort of position she held in the NCC.

> Of the letter, the announcer said:

> "Dozens of Church leaders, including the head of the President's own
> denomination, wrote to Bush, calling his partisan use of religion
> blasphemy."

> The screen showed a letter, with the word BLASPHEMY `magnified' in an insert
> (it was in capital letters, so maybe it was not an actual magnification
> of what the letter contained).

It so happens that the leaders of several mainstream religious denominations
have been on the Republicans' case about this for several weeks.  They objected
to Bush's statement that the Democratic platform makes no mention of G-O-D.

> The screen then cut to Joan Campbell, saying "We dare not ever use God to
> favor one group over another.  Down that road is the road of intolerance
> and injustice."

I see nothing extreme or rehensible in this statment.

> Now, I have not heard everything Bush has said on the subject of religion,
> but none of what I heard is even remotely describable by Ms. Campbell's
> first sentence.  Based on what I have heard Bush say, Ms. Campbell is
> failing to distinguish between what is known as "hating the sin" and
> "hating the sinner."  Bush certainly comes down strongly in favor of
> traditional Christian values, but in interviews about how he would react
> if a grandson were gay, or a granddaughter having an abortion, he has
> shown again and again that he loves the sinner while hating the sin.

There's nothing remarkable about GHWB's expressions of warmth and
non-judgementalism about his own grandchildren.

> I should add that one thing I have not heard, but have read on USENET,
> is an account of Bush saying that he did not think atheists made good
> citizens.  While this can easily be taken to be an exception to what
> I have said, I would like to hear more about what he understands by
> "a good citizen" and also whether he was making a blanket statement
> about atheists in general.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."
            -- GHWB to Robert Sherman, 8/27/88

> I think he is badly misguided on this, but (1) he is not making a judgment
> about whether they are good people in other respects and (2) I do not see
> any indication that he favors other people over them except in the matter
> of political appointments, and the Republicans have no monopoly on
> favoring one group over another as regards political appointments.

If atheists should not be considered citizens, that mean they can't
vote, right?  Seems pretty prejudiced and intolerant to me.

> At any rate, all this pales in comparison with the use of "BLASPHEMY"
> as a means of using `God' to favor Bill Clinton over George Bush.

You missed something.  The signatories to that letter don't want _either_
party to claim God's endorsement.

> 1. I accuse Joan Campbell, and most of the dozens of Church leaders who
> wrote the letter, of having long ago given up whatever belief they
> may have had in a Creator of our physical universe.

You have no evidence that they do not believe in God.

> 2. I accuse Joan Campbell, and most of the dozens of Church leaders who
> wrote the letter, of having long ago given up whatever belief they
> may have had in personal survival after death.

You have no evidence that they do not believe in life after death.

> 3. I accuse Joan Campbell, and most of the dozens of Church leaders who
> wrote the letter, of having long ago given up whatever belief they
> may have had in a personal deity capable of directly intervening in
> human history.

You have no evidence that they do not believe in God.

> Before going on to my fourth and final accusation, let me assure
> readers that I am making no value judgments as to the disbelief
> of these people.  I have no doubt that they are sincere in their
> disbelief, and because of the way they privately redefine the words "God",
> "life after death", and a host of other concepts that seem perfectly
> straightforward to simpler people, they also do not see how very
> far they are from the Christianity of the Apostolic period.

Sure you aren't, Nyikos.  Further down, you accuse a Christian writer of
drifting from "the biblical standard of humility."  I have to wonder whose
"biblical standards" of anything _you_ subscribe to, giving your history
of posting sleazy and misleading smears of doctors who perform abortions.

[--much deleted--]

> 4. Finally, I accuse Joan Campbell, and most of the dozens of
> Church leaders who wrote the letter, of using the word
> "blasphemy," which long ago ceased to have any non-secular meaning
> to them, to indirectly promote their own social and political
> agenda by calling into question that of Bush in terms sure to
> mislead the average churchgoer into thinking there is something religious,
> in the traditional Christian sense, in their condemnation.

You have no evidence that they meant something other than what was written
in what was undoubtedly carefully thought-out letter, the final form of which
required the consensus of religious leaders with quite differing political
views.

> In the thread, "Is it Christian values or chauvinism", which originated in
> talk.abortion, I explain at some length how transparently phony one instance
> of the word `blasphemous' was.  The use to which these Church leaders put the
> word `blasphemy'  is not quite so transparent, but it is all the more
> reprehensible because of the authority behind it and the very public
> and political way it is used.

Funny thing:  I never heard any public condemnation from you of Pat Robertson
for his very public and political lies about the Iowa ERA and the feminist
movement.

> Ms. Campbell's words are doubly misleading because they give the
> impression that Bush is trying to "harness" God in pursuit of traditional
> family values, rather than acknowledging that, at least in this, he is
> making a sincere effort to follow what he sincerely sees as divine values.

But harnessing God in pursuit of electoral votes is exactly what GHWB is
attempting to do.  Face it, Nyikos, GHWB has shown over and over again
that he will say anything to further his political career.

> The difference is brought out by the title of a popular prayer book of
> the 1960's, Malcolm Boyd's _Are You Running With Me, Jesus?_  By the
> standards of Ms. Campbell and the un-named dozens of church leaders,
> the title of this book is blasphemy.  (However, since it was not written
> by a politician whom they are out to undermine, I'd be very surprised
> if they saw anything wrong with the title.)  Malcolm Boyd acknowledges
> himself that, were he a better man, he would have titled the book,
> _Am I Running With You, Jesus?_ but as it is, the book more closely
> resembles his mind-set.

You seem to be saying that an older and wiser Malcolm Boyd would have done
a better job editing his book.  So what?

> Today, looking back on this statement, I see how very far Malcolm Boyd
> was from the biblical standard of humility.  But his kind of arrogance
> is cheerfully tolerated in liberal theological circles, while the
> efforts of Christians to follow their Redeemer and walk humbly with
> their God is an object of condescension, and even of smear tactics.

To wrap everything up, the original "J'ACCUSE!" article had documented evidence
to support the accusations made.  In light of the complete lack of evidence to
support your allegations, your appropriation of the "J'ACCUSE!" headline is at
best laughable, but also reads like a smarmy and extremely public staking-out
of some personally-defined moral high ground. You're a fine one to complain
about smear tactics, Nyikos.

Mote.  Beam.  Eye.

--
Chris Lyman  /  email: [e-mail]  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
       "I ain't man enuff to be a mudder!" -- Robin Williams as "Popeye"