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: The Myth of Neutrality
Message-ID: <861@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Jul-84 09:25:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.861
Posted: Mon Jul 16 09:25:28 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Jul-84 01:21:33 EDT
References: <179@ssc-bee.UUCP> <776@pyuxn.UUCP>, <786@pyuxn.UUCP> <146@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 47

|                           Also, could someone explain what in heck Larry
| meant by "the myth of neutrality"?

> A Time for Anger (subtitled: The Myth of Neutrality)
> Franky Schaeffer
> 
> Today's society allegedly espouses open-mindedness and tolerance
> of divergent viewpoints. (that's the the neutrality part)
> This openmindedness is only extended to those who fall in line
> with the doctrines of secular humanism. (that's the myth part)
> 
> For example:
> A person elected to office who holds private views
> favoring abortion because he/she is a feminist attempts to
> have those views codified in the current legal code, by (for
> instance) legislative or judicial means.  No media outcry.
> 
> A person elected to office who holds private views
> opposing abortion because he/she is a Christian attempts to
> have those views codified in the current legal code, by (for
> instance) legislative or judicial means.  Whoa!! Wait a minute,
> now!  Don't impose your beliefs on us!!

Thank you, Paul Dubois, for finally providing the meaning of "myth of
neutrality".  I'm glad someone stepped forward and did so.  Very difficult
to discuss/debate its merits if you don't know what it is.

Allow me now to give a counterposition on this myth of neutrality.  It is
a myth in the sense that it does not espouse ALL points of view equally as
shown here.  But there is a major difference between two simple opposing points
of view and the ones described above.

Here we have one point of view that seeks to encourage the independence of
individuals in their own personal actions, and another that seeks to
diminish it.  The first case is an example of supporting neutrality, in that
it allows people individual freedom to choose.  (As the old speech goes,
no one is forcing anyone to have an abortion.)  The second case is restricting
personal freedom (people ARE being forced NOT to have abortions, or at least
are being told that they can't).

So, you're right, it IS a myth, it's not completely "neutral".  It is in
direct opposition to points of view that confront and oppose and seek to
undermine "neutrality", or the belief that people's individual freedoms
should not be interfered with where their own personal lives are concerned.
-- 
"Now, Benson, I'm going to have to turn you into a dog for a while."
"Ohhhh, thank you, Master!!"			Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr