Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.politics
Subject: Re: The Falwellite Frenzy
Message-ID: <806@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 24-Mar-84 13:13:33 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.806
Posted: Sat Mar 24 13:13:33 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Mar-84 16:56:42 EST
References: <806@ulysses.UUCP>
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 44

==================
My objection to the Moral Majority is that they (a) claim a monopoly on
Revealed Truth, and (b) use their interpretation of this as the basis
for political action.  Point (a) is consistent with the behavior of
many religions; while I don't particularly care for it, it's certainly
a reasonable exercise of freedom of religion.  And almost any political
viewpoint can be defended as well.  But when the two are combined, you
have an attempt to set public policy on religious grounds -- and that's
one of the evil effects of a state-sponsored religion.  Not only that,
but the policies are set beyond the bounds of rational debate, because
the proponents claim them to be a matter of revealed truth.

So -- support any political position you want, including one based on
your religious beliefs.  But find some justification that a non-believer
can accept.
==================
The above is quoted in full, in part because I agree with it, but in part
because the entire thing could be reworded without reference to religion.
Consider the articles a few weeks ago by the person who was so certain
that a nuclear reactor under construction had to be stopped at all costs.
He felt that because he was RIGHT, he had the right to use force (not violence)
to impose his views.

There are many groups of people who are sure they are right about something,
and only the stupidity/evil of the rest of the world prevents them from
agreeing.  That's not so bad, but the "logic" often follows that these
people have the right (or even duty) to impose their views on everyone
else for their own good.

Perhaps some of these fanatics do have truth on their side.  Worse, perhaps
there are good rational arguments, but these arguments are too subtle to
be effectively presented in a public forum.  How do we distinguish
rational fanatics from irrational ones.  How do we distinguish rational
but wrong fanatics from rational but correct ones?  Whose views should
we all accept for our own good?

For my part, I tend to agree with almost everything Jesus proclaimed or
tried to teach, and with almost nothing that so-called Christians say.
That means, to quote another prophet of a different age: "Let a thousand
flowers bloom."
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt