Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Wingate on different kinds of evil
Message-ID: <409@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Jan-85 18:46:36 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.409
Posted: Mon Jan 28 18:46:36 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Jan-85 04:19:59 EST
References: <2204@nsc.UUCP> <385@pyuxd.UUCP> <2697@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Strongarm Collection Agency:  WE HAVE NO SLOGAN
Lines: 41

>      I take Jesus' statement that "You shall know them by their works" in a
> very narrow fashion.  It seems to me that he was talking in terms of
> individuals, not groups.  I therefore feel quite justified in rejecting the
> Inquisitors, and even Martin Luther's antisemetism (but not his good
> theology), without rejecting Christianity.
>      Now I realize that we all have thresholds at which we refuse to tolerate
> an institution which associates itself with too much evil.  My complaint is
> that there seems to be a double-standard here; somehow the evils which
> Christians have from time to time committed are more weighty than when the
> same acts are done by non-religious groups.  There also seems to be a bias
> against the examination of the good that the various institutions have
> brought forth.  It seems to me that any reasonable comparison of, for
> instance, Cambodia under Pol Pot and Medieval Europe is going to eventually
> tilt in favor of the Europeans, given either my standards or those which
> Rich Rosen has stated.
>      I therefore discount any "Your evil cancels out my evil" arguments,
> such as the referenced article would have us agree to.

Sorry, Charlie, the "referenced article" said nothing of the sort.
What it did say was that the evils of non-religious despotism have little to
do with other non-religious movements/ideals.  It's erroneous (and
manipulative) to try to simply lump to the two groups together just because
they are BOTH *not* religion (esp. Christianity).

However, the evils of religion (esp. Christianity) ARE in fact closely tied
with the tenets of the religion itself:  the element of superiority, of
required gospel-spreading to "heathens", of imposing morality on other people.
Those very evils---the pogroms, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Nazi
anti-Semitism (argue if you will that it was not carried out from a very
"Christian" perspective), and today's Moral (?) Majority (?)---are ROOTED
in the model of so-called Christian thought.  There *are* those Christians who
have shirked such notions and have a much more rational bent on their place
in the world (shared with others) and in a free society.  Unfortunately, the
more vocal, more active, and perhaps even the greater number of Christians
still adhere to the mindset of Christian rightness and superiority.  Listen to
those who proclaim proudly "I cannot share the world with you.  I cannot allow
you to legitimize things I disapprove of.  It's wrong because it's against
the word of god."
-- 
Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought.
			Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr