Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: coatta@cs.ubc.ca (Terry Coatta) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Church and State Message-ID: Date: 21 Aug 90 01:56:46 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 44 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Catherine Dalzell writes: > Are Americans really supposed to respect each other's views? I > pity you if that is the case. Your days are numbered. Surely what > you are supposed to respect are the people holding the views. Hate > the sin, love the sinner, is the old formula, and that applies to > sins of the intellect as well as plain ignorance. IN matters where > you care about truth you don't respect error. For instance it > would never occur to me to respect the mathematical errors of my > students, since these are deserving of the red pen treatment, but > I have great regard for my students and for their capacity to do > better and learn. There is a good deal of difference between mathematical errors and religious ``errors''. An error in mathematics exist because of a commonly accepted framework of rules for the manipulation of mathematical formula and symbols. With religion there is no objective reality that we can point to and say, ``There, this is the right way.'' You HAVE TO respect other peoples' religious views because they derive from the same sorts of desires, motivations, and perceptions as do your own. Respect does not imply acceptance. It simply means acknowledging that others may have sincerely held religious beliefs just as strong, yet different from your own. God does not send us forth to make laws in a secular world. He sends us forth to spread the Gospel, and to love others as he has loved us. Only when civil law prevents us from doing this, do we have justification in challenging civil authority. We cannot legislate righteousness. The abortion issue is noteworthy because it derives from two opposite, and essentially religious points of view. I expect that some pro-choice individuals would object to having their point of view labelled religious, but I think the terminology is apt. We have no OBJECTIVE definition of what constitutes a person. Any precise definition of the term thus derives from personal beliefs. I see no easy path for reconciliation here. A Christian (who is opposed to abortion) will feel compelled by God's edict to love one another, to protect the innocent. Some one who is pro-choice sees no innocent in need of protection, and feels that the religious beliefs of others are being forced upon them. Terry Coatta (coatta@cs.ubc.ca) Dept. of Computer Science, UBC, Vancouver BC, Canada `What I lack in intelligence, I more than compensate for with stupidity'