Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!hp-sdd!hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!rutgers!husc6!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-amt!jason
From: jason@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Jason A. Kinchen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Why believe in religion?
Message-ID: <363@mit-amt.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 9-Oct-86 14:05:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-amt.363
Posted: Thu Oct  9 14:05:15 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 01:52:04 EDT
References: <1174@cybvax0.UUCP> <677@cal-asd.fluke.UUCP> <1185@cybvax0.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 68
Xref: dcdwest talk.religion.misc:467 net.religion.christian:5049
Summary: Political motivation?  Are your sure?

In article <1185@cybvax0.UUCP>, mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
 
> I expend no effort against non-existent gods: my arguments are directed to
> very real people (well, maybe not so real.... :-)  These people claim that
> because of an invisible being (that only they can see and hear), they have
> more authority than I do.  They want to enact laws (such as blasphemy laws,
> abortion laws, etc.) that are designed to enforce their whims.  It is
> politically important for me to oppose this nonsense.  I certainly don't do
> it out of some idiotic need to tell a god that it doesn't exist.

Mike,

I have followed your discourses on net.religion.christian for some time and 
was surprised to see you write such a silly paragraph.  Up to this point, I 
have been convinced that although your language is sometimes stronger than
necessary to make your points, that you proceed quite well from your premise 
of atheism, and that your view is interesting.  The quote from Dave Trissel
is something I thing every religious person should read.  However, the above
rationalization is quite flawed and in no way coincides with your actions.

You state that you must oppose a viewpoint that claims to have authority over
you, but why?  First of all, not all Christians hold the view that they have 
authority over their fellow man.  In fact, being a Christian myself, not only
do I not hold myself above you, in particular, but was enjoying learning from 
you.  I think that the words of Paul are quite appropriate to show that it is 
certainly not the Christian party line to oneself above others.  He states that
those who would minister should think of themselves as servants and not as 
masters.

Second, simply because some people in a group claim authority does not mean 
that they actually have it.  Only your submission to the authority would give
it any punch.  Let them think what they want, you certainly aren't going to 
bow to their will.

Thirdly, don't YOU in fact, fight fire with fire, and imply superiority over
Christians by saying that they are not "real people", that the practice of 
the religion is "pathetic", that their views "nonsensical"?

Then you get worried about the laws some Christians are trying to pass, but 
aren't you confusing cause and effect here?  Isn't it much easier and more 
effective to oppose the legislation itself rather than a tradition of millions
of people that has about a two thousand year head start on you?  Speaking as
a Christian who in fact holds probably the same political views that you do,
I can tell you that if you are really doing all this because it is "politically
important" then you've made a serious mistake.  For one thing, you alienate
potential allies like myself who do not share your view of Christianity, but 
who are opposed to those same laws.  Wouldn't our efforts be welcome?

I'm especially surprised that you tried to hang the anti-abortion issue around
the Christians' neck.  Even if every Christian were to magically become an
atheist tomorrow (in your dreams, right?), there would still be a loud and 
quite organized cry against abortion.  Pro-Lifers and Christians are not 
synonymous, and you gain absolutely nothing by attacking Christianity for the 
sake of the right to have abortions.  The issue is far too complex for it to 
be dealt with as an attack on religious doctrine.

I don't why you attack Christianity with such vehemence (I don't mind, in
fact, I find it stimulating) and you are certainly allowed to have your opinion
but this line about being politically motivated is just so much hooey.  It's
either stupid or it's dishonest, but either way it isn't worthy of you.  And I
don't understand why it is necessary.  Why take a personal choice you are com-
pletely entitled to have and try and fallaciously elevate it to the level of a
political mandate?

I suggest you reread the words of Dave Trissel under the light of your own
views and be honest with yourself.

			Jason Kinchen
			jason@media-lab.MIT.EDU