Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!ittvax!bunker!bunkerb!garys
From: garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Flame re: 'religion in general'
Message-ID: <256@bunkerb.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Nov-83 11:22:45 EST
Article-I.D.: bunkerb.256
Posted: Fri Nov 18 11:22:45 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Nov-83 04:10:40 EST
Lines: 66

>From Rich Gann:
              It appears to me that religion (in particular, the 
              organized sort) has always served those in power as
              a very reliable method of manipulating large populations
              (mainly through fear/hatred) towards largely sinister
              and destructive ends. Historical examples of this are legion.

"Always???"  I always mistrust the words "always" and "never."  Yes, what
you have described has happened, but examples are not "legion."  A Roman
legion was several thousand.  Do you really know of several thousand
examples of religion being used in this manner?  Are you really
unaware of any examples where religion has not been used this way?
It appears to me that "those in power" who are working "towards
largely sinister and destructive ends" will use religion, or hatred
of religion, or anything else.  That is not a criticism of religion,
or of anti-religion, but of "those in power."  Do "those in power"
always have "sinister and destructive" goals?

Or is it that you just don't like "religion", and are looking for
any excuse to denigrate it?  Just what do you mean by "religion",
anyway?

              Religion seems to offer a conceptual framework (some
              would call it a "crutch") to help the bewildered cope
              with a vast and incomprehensible universe. Many people
              apparently have a genuine need for the emotional and moral
              support of religion.

Some people have an apparent need to puff themselves up by belittling
others.

              Some of us prefer naked facts.

How do you distinguish a "naked" fact from a "clothed" fact?
Why is a "naked" fact preferable?

              Wasn't it Voltaire who said "There will be no peace on
              earth until the last King strangles on the entrails of the
              last priest" ?

I don't care who said it; it's nonsense.  There aren't that many kings
left now, and troubles are increasing.  Or do you mean that all
governments should be abolished, as well as all religions?  Have
you figured out how you are going to persuade 4-5 billion people
to live together in perfect harmony with neither government nor
religion?  Or do you mean that there will be peace when the last
two people die?

              Those interested in the anti-religious viewpoint might
              like to read "Why I Am Not A Christian" by Bertrand Russell,
              and "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer.

I have read "Why I Am Not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell (but not
"The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer).  I was not impressed.  Russell
criticizes what he thinks is Christianity.  If I thought Christianity
were what Bertrand Russell thought it was, I wouldn't want anything
to do with it, either.  But I don't accept his concept of Christianity.

What did you hope to accomplish with your note?  Did you think to
persuade "religious" people to cease being religious?  Did you think
you were furthering the cause of atheism? humanism? any-ism?  All you
have done, in my opinion, is provide ammunition to those who would
claim that irreligious people are unthinking bigots.  Is that what
you intended?

Gary Samuelson