Date: Sun Oct 19 20:18:53 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Acquaintance, Rnd 3
At 05:17 PM 10/19/97 0500, you wrote:
Racist or anti-Semitic thoughts (versus overt actions) are difficult to diagnose.
Not really, and you don't have to be paranoid to catch them. Good intentions pave the road to hell, etc., and many people who don't believe they have a racist bone in their body, often may not have looked deep enough.
If I "think" certain actions are characteristic of a group (or a significant majority of them), is that racist?
Yes. Anytime you allow yourself to indulge a generality, even a positive one, about an individual based upon his membership in a group that he had no control of being part of you run the risk.
If it is, we are all hopelessly racist.
I think we are all racists, but it's not hopeless.
To me, if I allow my preconceived notions to be modified by what I experience, that is not racism. If (the majority of) the group tends to reinforce my negative beliefs, that is not racism.
Generally true on both counts.
It is fact, based on observation and experience. If my preconceived notions are proven false, then I can modify my belief on the same grounds. The key here is to not take actions against a member of a group because of the way you feel about the group as a whole.
Yes, sometimes we have to reexamine some of the generalities though. We judge others by our own standards. You're a well traveled man, and understand through experience the concept of cultural diversity. It's natural for us as white men to view what blacks have to do to get along according to our own standards. But we often miss some critical motivational factors because we're judging what they say by our own standards. I try hard not to be a bleeding white liberal. Indeed, I often challenge racial preconceptions of my non-white acquaintances. But I'm beginning to realize I may have been making judgments without having all the facts when it comes to race.
I think where you and I may not quite have a common understanding is about things that you interpret as anti-Semitic, but are not intended to be so.
I think my only point was that "best intentions" still often hide race based preconceptions about people. We've bandied the word "anti-Semitism" about a lot, but it's race consciousness generally that I'm focusing on these days.
I tried to be conscious not to do them, but I may have done it inadvertently a few times. Am I rambling again?
No, it's a good example of how even the most innocuous thing done with no mal-intent at all can be culturally insensitive.
I am having difficulty with the fight against public expressions of one's religion (if it happens to be Christianity, because no other religion is being attacked so vigorously in America today) being justified in terms of trying to destroy a "thought system."
Public expression by individuals has always been protected, and vigorously so by people like the ACLU. It's when people with government power, as officials of the government, endorse or promote their own personal brand of religion, using the government's resources to do it, that people get hurt.
Has the "anti-Christian left" already sufficiently stifled freedom of speech, and the freedom of thought is the next objective? Dangerous ground, that course!
I assume you meant "Hasn't." And the answer is an emphatic "no." Did you catch the thing on Moore on 20/20 last Thursday night? An atheist, looked like he was in his late sixties, white man, was "invited" to leave the courtroom before the prayer that Moore's pastor led. He had to walk in front of and through a packed room full of jury venire members to leave. But he'd been summoned by court process to come and do his civic duty. And I'm sure he wanted to do it. But now he's been identified to the whole room full of people as a "non believer." Will he get on a jury? What influence as an ordinary citizen will he have in the jury room in deliberations? Will they dismiss him as a crank? In fact, what happened on a psychological level was that in order to participate and do his civic duty he's had to pass a religious qualifications test. When he walked out, he failed the test. Judge Moore just created the perfect environment for someone to be shunned for their religious (non)beliefs.
The first amendment protects the free speech and thought rights of individuals from the government. The government and its officials have no first amendment protections, because the amendment wasn't designed to protect "the government." Moore can think and say anything he wants when he's not on government time, using the state's resources my tax dollars paid for.
Lest you doubt that the move is anti-Christian, rather than anti-religious, take a drive by a local public school. (You know the place where "religion" is not to be taught?) You will find jack-o-lanterns and witches drawn and/or posted as holiday decorations. Halloween is traditionally a satanic holiday. And Satanism is accepted by the Court as a religion.
Oh, puh leeze.... Santa Clause, reindeer and the Easter Bunny are all fine, for the same reason Halloween paraphernalia is. Christmas trees are too. What could be more religious in origin than Thanksgiving, and yet we have turkey dolls, pilgrims, etc. In that context they don't have a religious primary significance, and are simply symbols of what has become a generic holiday season. As to Christmas trees, is that a symbol that the government is endorsing and promoting druidism? Naaahhh....
The principles of humanism (another recognized "religion") are taught as fact.
“Recognized” in a twisted sense of logic by Judge Brevard Hand in reasoning that has been rejected. You want to call evolutionary theory a religion called humanism? We're going backward here.
And New Age practices are taught to help the kids "find themselves" or learn to interact with their "spirit guides." Is religion being taught in the public schools? Absolutely! And it is promoted by the U.S. Government, as long as it isn't Christianity. Many Christians respond, not by litigation, but by home schooling their children.
Well, it's an interesting question where this "spirit guide" philosophy ends and religion begins. There've been lawsuits by prisoners who don't want to attend, as a precondition to favorable parole consideration, Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous on the basis that it's occasional references to God and frequent references to a "higher power" is a religion. They've won in a couple of federal courts and in New York and California. Personally and legally I disagree with those courts (and the ACLU). I don't think those programs promote or endorse religion. But perhaps I draw the line differently when it's not specifically identifiably denominational. I do not view "spirituality" as "religion."
You misunderstood my response. I favor "working toward" world peace and good relations with folks of different groups. I do it on a personal basis whenever I can. I was commenting on that as being a goal for you and I to pursue to find a common base of understanding.
But imagine what a contribution to the world we could make, if we could do it! How can we expect the world to be able to do it, if you and I, two reasonably intelligent and well-intentioned thinkers can't? Yes, it'll be difficult, but the alternative sure ain't working.
I guess what I am saying is that I know of no way to measure our progress. But, for the record, I am for world peace and peaceful relations between individuals and groups. It is the "how to achieve it" that is the philosophical bottomless pit.
Just because we don't have the answers to "how" right now, doesn't mean if we don't keep plugging away at it that we won't tomorrow. It was inconceivable to man once that he could fly. But he kept plugging away.
Agreed. Your understanding of the precepts of Christianity are correct. I just wish more "Christians" understood them that well. : (
Well, we'll just take them one at a time, eh?
“The question is -- whether you think it's realistic or not -- can it be?”
No place on earth is a perfect place. But I think America has a pretty good track record of accommodating varied religious beliefs and practices.
Well, I'd say it's better than many, if not most. But the nature of the issue is one that we must always be vigilant to ensure it remains so.
Yeah, the Mormons and some Indians may not quite agree to a great degree. At least we haven't taken lethal action against individual members, Waco excepted (but then they were under the banner of Christian, so it was okay to waste them). I didn't see the ACLU jumping to defend their liberties or screaming when they were violated. Don't misunderstand, I am not endorsing Koresh or his lifestyle, but reduced to its lowest terms, our Government attacked and destroyed a home church.
The ACLU is very concerned about the use of force in that case. The thing is, Koresh wasn't attacked BECAUSE he was running a home church. But by the same token he can not use the "church" as a shield for his criminal acts. The gov't may have botched the job, and Koresh may be a martyr to the militia and separatist mentality. It wasn't religious freedom he was exercising though.
Whether we like it or not, the Bible was a key document of influence in American law and government. As one who uses the law, you should know more about one of its foundations.
Well, they say the devil can quote scripture, and I'm sure I've been accused of that from time to time. When I read it, it'll be to learn more about the whole of western civilization, not just the USA. But ultimately I think I'm more interested in the dynamics of how man has used it well or, more often, perverted it to his own uses.
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment