Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!hplabs!hao!ames!barry From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Why believe in religion? Message-ID: <1696@ames.UUCP> Date: Fri, 10-Oct-86 14:07:54 EDT Article-I.D.: ames.1696 Posted: Fri Oct 10 14:07:54 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 04:05:06 EDT References: <1174@cybvax0.UUCP> <677@cal-asd.fluke.UUCP> <1185@cybvax0.UUCP> <363@mit-amt.MIT.EDU> Distribution: na Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 88 Xref: ucbvax talk.religion.misc:506 net.religion.christian:563 From: jason@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Jason A. Kinchen): >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. > >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. But some do. Read the quoted paragraph from Mike again. It says nothing about "all Christians". It talks only of people who want to give their religious whims the force of law. >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. Don't be naive. When they come to your door with guns drawn, or throw you in prison for "immorality", they've *got* the authority, whatever one's personal opinion of their morals. >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"? If Mike said this, you failed to quote it. The paragraph speaks of religious fanatics who try to legislate their private morality into public policy. >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? Come again? 2000-year head start? Religious skepticism is older than you think. Read Lucretius some time. >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? Your help is more than welcome to me. What did Mike say to alienate you? >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. Questionable. I do know of a small number of people (Hi, Laura!) who oppose abortion for reasons unrelated to religion, but they are rare. Opposition to abortion is primarily the work of religious conservatives. Not all such are Christian, but most are, this being a predominantly Christian nation. It is not a case of hanging anti-abortion around all Christian's necks, however, but just around the necks of those conservative types who are actively working to make abortion illegal. >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 can't answer for Mike, but I certainly agree with him about the danger to our liberties posed by the religious right. Speaking for myself, this danger is one of the two reasons I participate in *.religion.*. The other is that I find religion, itself, interesting, even though I don't have one. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry