Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 08:57:23 0500
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Chairman of Board
I think I discovered some "truth," or something very close to it. I'll be sending it (a tape) to you. Subject: Original Intent. Hope you find it personally and professionally enlightening. Consider it my contribution to the "original intent" discussion.
Date: Sat Oct 18 10:25:49 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Acquaintance, Rnd 2
I just don't know anyone who is truly anti-Semitic.
Well, we may be having definitional issues again. We're not really talking about people who overtly practice anti-Semitism, but about approaches to thinking about getting along with one another that can lead to discrimination and result in anti-Semitism.
And please don't consider being Christian and believing that acceptance of Jesus Christ as saviour is required for redemption is anti-Semitic. It is no more anti-Semitic than it is anti-black, anti-Indian, or anti-Eskimo. I'm not speaking of history. I'm speaking of now.
I'm sensing a tendency that you are viewing things in the extremes here. I've certainly never said that or made a connection between ordinary belief in Christ and anti-Semitism. We're talking about the dangers of a thought system that implicitly encourages moral superiority over peoples who believe differently. There's a difference between your belief that Christ is your savior, and therefore the ONE WAY for you, and believing that he's everybody else's and they better get on board or suffer the consequences.
“Do you think the idea of a world of people getting along who have many different beliefs in God is a worthwhile pursuit? If you believe that ought to be a goal the "right" should share, then we're halfway there.”
Wow! That is a pretty tall order, kind of like setting out to eat an elephant! While the idea that a world of peace is a worthy goal on an individual, community, or national level, the reality of the world in which we live is that it is unrealistic and unachievable.
That sounds like a "no." Now you're letting the obstacles get in the way of the goal. I'll tell you this. If I didn't believe it was a goal we should pursue, no matter how realistic or achievable it appears, we wouldn't be talking at all. In fact, it has occupied much of my thoughts these days.
Okay, I've thought about it. It has nothing to do with my "one way" belief. I don't know how many ways I can say it. Being Christian is not anti-get along with anyone.
You go off on a tangent here. And, it sounds a little defensive. Again, belief in Christ as YOUR savior doesn't automatically have to equate with anti-get-along in my book. Indeed, as I understand the precepts of Christianity, it should be exactly the opposite. It doesn't have to be us against them, Pogo. And it shouldn't be. The question is: whether you think it's realistic or not, can it be?
"Original intent" will be addressed in another session. Your knowledge of history seems to have a hole here and there as well. Excuse me, but wasn't it Franklin (probably the least Christian of our founding fathers) who addressed the assembly during a hopeless deadlock and quoted Psalm 127:1, then called for a prayer (which lasted for hours)?
Yup, that's what Franklin did, called for it anyway. That's what you do. It's what I'd do if I thought it would stop the fighting. Shame people by calling on their gods before them. What I've learned is that he was a deist. And all sorts of other things. But the fact that I can talk about God doesn't mean you can imply any sense of religiosity about me.
If Washington didn't believe God responded, all those artists who painted him in prayer sure led us astray. Washington was a man of prayer!
Think about this, because I think you're making my point. Washington is "recorded" as this devout man and all that. But he was a military leader who had a commanding presence who then took on a political role. He had many foibles. I'm not knocking him. But with few exceptions, anyone who seeks those offices hasn't got spirituality on the brain. We deify and romanticize our founding fathers and the important leaders of our day. Princess Diana and Mother Theresa die a week apart, and who gets the lion's share of the press for all her "good works"? That's precisely my point. Relying on the artistic or literary (or even "historical") portrayals of important or popular figures is not proof of who they really were.
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment