Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou2a.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!houxm!hou2a!murphy
From: murphy@hou2a.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: religion in general
Message-ID: <180@hou2a.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Nov-83 13:41:37 EST
Article-I.D.: hou2a.180
Posted: Mon Nov 21 13:41:37 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Nov-83 03:16:50 EST
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 26


                The intent of my recent opinion on "religion in general"
           was not to upset or arouse indignation, although it seems to
           have done this. I wanted to express an opinion, however
           hastily conceived, and to generate some thoughtful discussion.
           On this last count, I seem to have failed.

               I apologize for any poor choices of words implying absolutes
          ("always", etc.); as for meanings of words used such as "legion",
          "religion", etc. please refer to Webster's New Collegiate
          Dictionary. I'm not interested in semantic sparring; you may 
          consider me to be an ignoramus if it makes you feel better.

              I agree that religion has not always been used merely as a
         convenient vehicle for man's urge to dominate and destroy, but
         the fact that is has been (and is) should give reason for pause
         to those who champion it.

              I find it interesting that my opinion has generated some
         apparent emotional heat. Why should what I have said upset
         anyone who is secure in their beliefs? As for those who are not
         secure in their beliefs, there is something to be said for an
         honest, critical, unemotional (as far as possible) approach to
         such questions as "why do I believe in thus-and-such?".

                                                     Rich Ganns
                                                     hou2a!murphy