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!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Absurdity Revisited: A Perfect Example
Message-ID: <852@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Jul-84 20:38:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.852
Posted: Thu Jul 12 20:38:16 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Jul-84 04:57:32 EDT
References: <146@usfbobo.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 54

> There is another shade of meaning to the use of the word "thinking"
> as used in the above excerpt.  This is the modern notion of
> *open-mindedness*.  "All beliefs are equally valid."  The song
> of fools. [DAVID BRUNSON]

Apparently "The Song of Wise Men" tells our friend here that HIS beliefs
are, in fact, the correct ones.  He certainly avoids that dangerous modern
notion of open-mindedness.  So much so that he doesn't understand it.
To him, it implies "all beliefs are equally valid", while to open-minded
people it means "all beliefs are only as valid as the evidence and experience
to support them, and new evidence/experience can and does alter beliefs".
Where is the evidence in your "Song of the Wise Men"?  It sounds like something
Jeff Sargent had written about how *everyone* has a foundation to their
beliefs, and the shattering of someone's foundation would in turn shatter
his/her life.  Not that that is true for everybody, but I think it's true
for Mr. Brunson here.  The foundation whose shattering would cause his life
to crumble is the idea that his belief system is ultimately correct
("Evidence, we doan nid no steenking evidence!").  This may be why the
notion of "open-mindedness" is so frightening to him.  It would mean
affirming the possibility that he could be wrong.  Thus he boldly states that
believing in the possibility of the wrongness of his beliefs is the song of
fools.  If that's what it is, then sing along.

> Again a dismal *poverty* of values.  I can abort
> fetuses for a living, I can be a flaming homosexual and influence
> others to do likewise, I can produce songs and films that encourage
> lifestyles ruinous to those that adopt them; but if I so much
> as *question* the prudence of these activities (let alone *mock*
> them), then I have violated the Secularist Ten Commandments
> and must bear my reproach before the "thinkers".

Horrors!  Being a flaming homosexual!  (Quick, get a bucket of water! :-)
Or a doctor who performs abortions on not yet living fetuses. (If they're
living when can't they "live" outside of the womb?  Further back-and-forth
on this topic should move to net.abortion)  Or an artist "encouraging" people
to live out ruinous lifestyles.  (This is absolutely true.  I have seen
films that describe such radically different lifestyles and ideals from
Mr. Brunson's, and they DO have guards at the theater exits FORCING you
to change into living these horrid lifestyles!  Honest!  You would think
people could make their own decisions on the merits of a lifestyle.  But,
no, reasoning capabilities that have atrophied from disuse [I already know
what's right---it's in this book!] often prevent that.)

The one statement that intrigued me was "I can be a flaming homosexual and
influence others to do likewise."  But Mr. Brunson can write articles and
be a flaming... uh... (rectal orifice?  naaah!) religionist and influence
other people to do so!  Isn't that horrible?  No?  Oh, I see, it's different.
Being a homosexual is a naughty bad thing, but proselytizing religious values
is O.K.  Do you just take that for granted or is there a reason for that
(obvious?) point of view.  Perhaps the fact that I don't think that it is
obvious is another sign of dangerous "open-mindedness" ("Don't bother to
think about *why* that's bad!  I *said* it is!!!").
-- 
If it doesn't change your life, it's not worth doing.     Rich Rosen  pyuxn!rlr