Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!harpo!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: The Annotated Humanist (part *n* of 4)
Message-ID: <590@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 22-Apr-84 19:12:34 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.590
Posted: Sun Apr 22 19:12:34 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Apr-84 07:20:00 EST
References: <1020@qubix.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 51

After finding Larry's 4 part diatribe on the dangers of humanism, I
thought I might have my hands full for the next few years responding.
After reading it, though, I think I can sum up a more than adequate response
in only a few lines.

1.  Everything that goes against Larry's version of the "word of god" (he,
	like others, has yet to offer reasonable proof of its veracity) is
	perversion.  I assume by this that he means it is wrong and should
	be stopped (at what cost?  and for what reason?)

2.  Everyone that seeks their own way (contrary, of course, to Larry's way)
	is out only for themselves and would kill Larry (and others) to
	get their way.  What's more, according to Larry, they'd have a
	right (maybe even an obligation) to do so according to the
	Humanist Manifesto.

3.  Humanism is based on the selfish needs of individuals who would be left
	unchecked in their evil ways if not for a rigidly enforced system
	of imposed values that could come only from religion (from god,
	supposedly, but that's another argument...)

Who else out there has had it up to *here* ["HE HAS HIS HAND AS HIGH AS IT CAN
GO ABOVE HIS HEAD." -ED.] with those who have decided (for us, apparently)
that 1) human beings are scum; disgusting creatures who will stop at nothing
to get their way if unchecked by the will of god, 2) the only way to prevent
society from degrading to this sort of level is to impose rigid laws, and
3) the only real authority for such a set of laws would have to be a deity
since scumsucking humans would never consent to a reasonable system of rules
unless they feared divine retribution?????????

Sometimes I think that it wouldn't really matter to such religionists whether
or not there was a god, as long as people could be kept in fear, enough so
that they would adhere to *their* version of what is clearly right for
everyone.  How many times do I have to sit here and describe a society that
exists on the premise that rights end where imposition on another person
begins, and that further restrictions on rights that would exist solely for the
purpose of "keeping the society together" are bogus because a society should
exist as a means to serve the individuals in it and not the other way around???

I've sort of given up on convincing people like Larry that a rational society
with rational values (understood rather than imposed) is more mature than
a religious autocracy (I know, you want a democracy, just as long as we all
vote the way you do...).  I do hope that I've deflated his little opus enough
that people can see that Larry's picture of humanism is not based on any
rational notion, but rather on his own picture of what all human beings must
be like (looked in a mirror lately, Larry?), and (perhaps) on his own need to
see the world run by a parental god who tells him (and me and you) what to do
so that we can avoid thinking...
-- 
Pardon me for ...  oh, never mind!!
					Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr