Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!husc6!uwvax!topaz!ll-xn!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcc6!sdcc3!za56 From: za56@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Brian McNeill) Newsgroups: net.religion,talk.religion Subject: Re: Banning books, religion etc... Message-ID: <3554@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> Date: Mon, 1-Sep-86 16:50:32 EDT Article-I.D.: sdcc3.3554 Posted: Mon Sep 1 16:50:32 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Sep-86 04:23:19 EDT References: <1637@ames.UUCP> <180@BMS-AT.UUCP> Reply-To: za56@sdcc3.UUCP (Brian McNeill) Followup-To: talk.religion Distribution: net Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center Lines: 131 Keywords: CENSORSHIP (GASP) Xref: linus net.religion:10668 talk.religion:35 Summary: How about us atheists? I had hoped that you Xian's out there weren't still on the warpath to censor things for our own "good". Unfortunately, this response is in response to just such an article. Oh well, here goes. In article <180@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: >In article <1637@ames.UUCP>, barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: >> >I will just say that they belong >> >to a genre which present Mankind as evolving to higher and higher states. >> >(This is often called Humanism). I find this concept arrogant and foolish >> >whether viewed from a christian or existential standpoint. > >> Why? Oh, I can see that it runs counter to creationist >> dogma, but most Xians, and presumably all existentialists, are >> not creationists. I fail to find anything anti-religious in the >> notion that human evolution has not stopped with the current >> model. Arrogant? How so? If anything, the admission that the >> human race could stand some improvement shows an admirable humility. > >A christian does (should?) not accept Humanism because it tries to >improve the human race without God. Trying to run our lives without >consulting the manufacturer or His intructions is how we got >into such a mess in the first place! > Fine with you Xians...print up a blacklist or something, but banning any (repeat ANY) books/movies infringes upon my 1st amendment rights to free speech. I (as an atheist) believe humanism is a quite valid concept, and am quite capable of running my own life without interference from some mythical "manufacturer." Something you should learn about being human is that the operating instructions come built in (its called a BRAIN...get that?) >An existentialist does (should?) not accept Humanism because he knows >that any supposed 'improvement' is illusory. > Why is any supposed "improvement" illusory? I have known many existentialist who believed quite firmly in evolution...seems to me thats a whole chain of "improvements", huh? >Why I don't diet exclusively on garbage: > >> What I *do* find a bit arrogant and foolish is the desire >> to avoid being presented with ideas with which one does not >> agree. Arrogant, because it suggests that one's ideas are >> incapable of further refinement, and foolish because it inhibits >> such refinement. > I agree...terribly arrogant of you Xian's also to presume to know what is better for my (nonexistent/unproven) soul. I am quite capable of making my own decision as to what I will/will not read, and I feel that I am undoubtably the best judge of that. Try opening your mind sometime, and looking past the stone walls of your Xian dogma. >[irrevelent deleted] > >When I first heard about the horror of pornography, I went out and >found a copy of Playboy. I avoided the pictures (hoping to have a happy >marriage someday) and read several articles. My conclusion: the articles >were typical of magazines and only occasionally disgusting. People must >buy it for the pictures. I have never since bothered reading (or looking >at) such magazines. Do I need to keep looking at the latest issues to >see if anything has changed? (Note, Playboy is considered very mild >pornography. The real stuff is better compared with sewage than garbage. >I have just the word of my friends who try to help people on 14th street >in DC. I feel no need at the moment to find out for myself.) > Why does looking at a picture of a [shudder] nude woman preclude a happy marriage later on? My parents have been together for close to 20 years now and, gosh, they must be unhappy together because my dad reads Playboy every now and then :^) Personally, I view the female body as a work of art (PS: are you planning on banning daVinci too?), and while I do agree with you that the "real stuff" is garbage, I support other people's right to read it for the same reason I think you are out of line here. It is THEIR business what they read, and they ought to know best what they want out of life. It is not your business what they read, nor should you poke your nose into it. Censorship (of ANY kind) is a bad thing, as our forefathers realized when they set out the constitution (amendment no 1 (ONE) is against censorship of any kind). >When I saw 2001, I enjoyed HAL and the gang. The first part of the movie >was more enjoyable than the last. At the end, it abandons traditional >storytelling and attempts to communicate Mankind's dream of becoming God >via disconnected but increasingly visionary scenes. This last part is >difficult to enjoy without sharing the philosophy of the authors. If >I was a full-time movie critic, I would probably see 2010. Since I am >not, I only have time for a movie 2 or 3 times a year. Based on the >advertising I simply decided that I would rather see a rerun of >'The Return of the Jedi' than see 2010. (Note, the 'StarWars' series >also contains anti-christian elements, especially in 'The Empire Strikes >Back'. Nevertheless I have found it consistently entertaining and >stimulating.) Awwww! Anti-Xian elements. Poor baby. If you think it offends you, don't see it. I happen to like opposing viewpoints. It adds spice to life. If everybody agreed with me, well, I'd be awfully bored awfully quickly (not to mention these nets wouldn't exist). It's good for you to see different sides of life. If you only experience one side of life, you are limiting yourself to something much less than what you could be. The reason why one of the few documents from the 1st millenium is the Bible is because the church took over and instituted a "purge" wherein all non-Xian documents were destroyed, as well as most non-Xian's (hear about the Crusades?) Guess why the Church was all-powerful during the middle ages? Because of the above purge. Why? Because the people had no exposure to anything non-Xian (fortunately, this changed). Note that the middle ages were one of the most stagnant in all ways non-Xian (no technology, little non-Xian artwork, slavery rampant, power concentrated COMPLETELY in the hands of the Church and nobles, etc) >[List of movies he's seen deleted] >[deleted stuff] >-- >Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart> NO! NO! Please don't cens[censored] /-----------------------------------------------------------\ | Brian McNeill ARPA : za56@sdcc3.ucsd.edu | | HASA "A" Division UUCP : ...!sdcsvax!sdcc6!sdcc3!za56 | |-----------------------------------------------------------| | Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim all knowledge of opinions, | | expressed or implied, including this disclaimer. | | Flames ---> /dev/null | \-----------------------------------------------------------/