Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site rabbit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!alice!rabbit!jj
From: jj@rabbit.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: The Bible and the Constitution
Message-ID: <1670@rabbit.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Jul-83 23:13:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: rabbit.1670
Posted: Fri Jul  8 23:13:18 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Jul-83 19:19:25 EDT
References: <248@cbscd5.UUCP>, <1663@rabbit.UUCP>, <255@cbscd5.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 65


Dear Paul,
	Since I don't seem to be able to mail to you, here goes.

	You complain about my labeling your argument as empty 
rhetoric, while not taking any account of your subject matter.
Believe what you may, but stating two unrelated facts next to each
other will not convince me to believe it.
	For your information, I firmly believe that a person's
internal ethos is not closely related to their religious beliefs.
While it is true that people with some styles of personal ethos
will find religion (without naming any one) compatible, it is not
necessarily true that those without any religious belief must have
any particular type of personal ethos.  It is just as true that
people who have an individual stance opposed to the intent of
religious belief (regardless of which particular type)
may use religion as a platform from which to
exercise their particular (to me) perversions.
	The particular tactic that I so strongly object to in your
first (and to an extent in the first part of your second) article
with this title is the association of a particular viewpoint,
in this case atheist, with something generally agreed to be
undefendably dreadful.  I wrote my reply in the same argumentive style 
(in case you didn't notice) partly to emphasize the illogic of the style.
	As to the subject matter concerning the intent of the
authors of the constitution, I am willing to allow your position
as a matter of argument.  I do think that it's not an important 
point at this time in history, given the evolution of the US
and world's culture, as the authors of the constitution were
acting in the style of their culture, and acting with their
cultural biases.
	I do not object at all to your arguing this subject, 
however I have a strong and quite well developed aversion to
argumentitive tactics that use deliberately generated emotion
to cloud the rational (including religious) discussion.  I have
studied history myself, in parts, and I have concluded that such
argument tactics have led to most of the major wars and atrocities
of the last 2000 years.  
	Some examples:
		The rise of Adolf Hitler (of course)
		The death of Ceasar
		The Bolchevik (sp) revolution
		The rise and reign of Idi Amin
		The death of Christ
		The persecution of the Jews
		The persecution of the Christians
		The Crusades
		The Roundhead Rebellion against the Stuarts
		The Shah of Iran
		The current state of affairs in Iran
		The Khymer genocide (in Cambodia/Kampuchia<sp>)
		The persecution of blacks in the late 1800's-present
		The Islamic/Hindu strife in India/Pakistan/BanglaDesh
			(Thank you, mother england)
		The Irish Revolution (still going on, ditto the above comment)

This list could go on for about another 50 lines or so, just off the top
of my head, each line showing some atrocity that was furthered by
a populace drunk on emotional rhetoric, of which the main content
was guilt by (emotional) association.  I don't think that you intended any
such thing to happen, I merely can't tolerate that particular kind of
argument.
A firm unbeliever in ORGANIZED religion.
	rabbit!jj