Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!nike!think!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: <366@mit-amt.MIT.EDU> Date: Tue, 14-Oct-86 12:42:33 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-amt.366 Posted: Tue Oct 14 12:42:33 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 15-Oct-86 00:43:36 EDT References: <1174@cybvax0.UUCP> <677@cal-asd.fluke.UUCP> <1185@cybvax0.UUCP> <1190@cybvax0.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, MA Lines: 273 Xref: ucbvax talk.religion.misc:540 net.religion.christian:574 First, just let me apologize for the "stupid or dishonest" comment in my last posting. I realize now that I got a little carried away and that it was un- called for. And I certainly appreciate your taking the time to clarify your view even though I must have sounded rude to you. In article <1190@cybvax0.UUCP>, mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > In article <363@mit-amt.MIT.EDU> jason@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Jason Kinchen) writes: > > In article <1185@cybvax0.UUCP>, mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > > > [Your paragraph about your opposition to Christianity being politically > > > motivated.] > > > > 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. > > Thanks. I'm glad to know somebody out there appreciates my writings: > I wonder if I'm posting to the bit-bucket. However, I'll try to explain why > I made the statement above, and why I think it is valid. > > > 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. > > While you may be a wonderful Christian, and while Paul may say such-and-so, > the fact is that organized Christianity is a politically powerful set of > entities that have been known to commit atroceties both active and > legislative. While I doubt that I qualify as a "wonderful Christian", there certainly is such a thing. I think the problem that you and I might be having, Mike, is the generalizations that are being made and the fact that you feel you need to oppose Christianity on a doctrinal basis in order to rid it of it's political power. > For example, the Massachusetts blasphemy law, under which I > could be convicted of enough counts to spend my life in jail. We see > religious leaders praying for the deaths of supreme court justices. Just a note here: the problem with it is that they are perfectly entitled to pray for whatever they want, just as you are entitled to say whatever you want, or should be, Mass Blasphemy laws notwithstanding. The other side of it is of course that these Christians could be held criminally liable should an attempt be made on anyone's life. > We > see gratuitous acts of dominance, such as legislating "In God We Trust" > on all coinage and adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance. Wow, I actually think you are being a bit easy on us. What about the Inquisition? What about the eastern European Pogroms, all sanctioned by various governments? The point is that I can be a Christian and precisely BECAUSE I am a Christian, I can oppose those same things that you do. I now they are loud and I know they exist, but I don't actually personnally know any Christians who really want "in God We Trust" on currency or prayer in schools, etc. Most are oppsed to it the same way I am. If you can pass a law calling for "In God We Trust" on money, all it takes is a swing of the and you've got money that says "God Rots". > > And a major part of the problem is Christians like you, who while not > directly blameworthy, do not oppose the depredations of their more > aggressive brethren, but stand silently by and say nothing is happening > because you aren't doing it yourself. I think you are a little too hard on us. I think that part of the problem is that just like atheists and agnostics, Christians like myself don't have a huge monolithic power structure. The Fundametalists and other groups do. They have figureheads, TV stations, national press coverage, etc. (All which they are completely entitled to have if they come by them legally.) And, they call themselves Christians, just like I do. THis is a really stomach turning experience, let me tell you. You and I both do not like what they do, but at least you don't have to be identified with it in places like net.religion.christian. If you want to call us to task on this because we don't have the clout that our more "aggressive brethren" do, then you must also call yourselves to task. I haven't seen any organized atheist/agnostic television networks or figureheads, unless you what to count Madeleine Marie O'Hare, but I don't think this would be a good move. Mostly you see us "less aggressive brethren" working on a parish level. I know at my church, we do march for peace, are involved very much in the establishment of low-income housing, equality for women ( there are more women clergy that men), etc. I know these are not the specific issues we are talking about, but I believe they are just as noble pursuits. > > > 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. > > Pollyanna twaddle! (I want to be polite, believe me, but this is too much.) > I could equally well respond that you don't need to submit to your God, > because only your submission gives him power. Authority can be made real > and powerful through the political process, which large numbers of new > Christian right leaders point out to their flocks daily. We may have a problem with semantics here. My point is that in the political process, they don't have any more "authority" than you do. One of them only has one vote to one of yours. Now, if you doubt the Constitution's power to keep it this way, then that is a different arguement and should be moved over to net.politics or net.legal. It is not the Christian's claim of authority that is the problem, because there will always be folks that want to force there will on you, but the lack of ability of the political process to protect you. Ultimately, they have to use the same process you do and that we all have to secure civil rights, free speech, etc. I think on balance, that those of us fighting for separation of church and state have been more successful. > They call for > boycotts, letters to politicians, endorse candidates, propositions, and > political positions, and even run for office themselves. > The point is that they are completely entitled to do so. And so are we. But you notice that aprt from a few counterproductive moves they have confined themselves to the issues and they have no qualms about endorsing non-Christians who will support their views. > > 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"? > > Superiority is not authority, and pretended authority by Christians is what I > am fighting. The definition of authority I mean is "power to command thought, > opinion, or behavior." The only way I feel I am superior to Christians is > that I am right, they are wrong. I'm sure the feeling is mutual. :-) > Case made. Point taken. However, I really think you might do better to curb your language at times. Just a suggestion. > > 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? > > Fight the disease, not the symptoms. Smallpox had a multi-million year > head start, yet it is now thoroughly subdued. Yet you would have us daub > pustules with calamine lotion. > > > 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? > > Why are you so hasty to assume I'm addressing you? Maybe this is where I'm confused. What specifically is the disease you mention above? In that context it looks like the Christian tradition is the disease. Now while I pretty much agree with you politically, I also cherish this trad- ition despite it's having been used for evil in the past. The point is that Christianity is the starting point, the foundation for us and that, like any- thing else, people can take it and use it for good or for evil. Now I can see your attacking the evil, but it really seems that you are attacking the foundation. Now, you are totally entitled to attack the foundation if you choose, but my arguement is that your political motivation for the attack is ungrounded for as much good can come from a religious motivation as evil. You might be surprised that if Christianity were to disappear, what replaced it even if it were secular, could be worse. Just a thought. > My statement was directed > towards a highly specific context: responding in a sense that Gore would > understand. Of course I have more than one motivation. Probably the most > personally influential is what Christians call "the search for truth". But > I wanted to lay an objective reason on the table, something that Gore > couldn't poo-poo away. Please reread my statement in context. > I will certainly watch for this motivation more in the future. Indeed, I thought it was your motivation all along and that's why I respected it. It's also the reason I wrote and was so surprised when you gave a reason that did not seem to jive with what I had come to expect from your writings. > > 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. > > Organized Christian groups have vociferously hung the abortion issue around > their own necks, and tried actively to meddle via the political process. Even though Christians do claim a religious motivation for this issue, I still cannot agree that this is the end of it. The "meddling" would certainly go on without Christians. And as for them engaging in the political process to effect an end to abortion? What other recourse do they have? They really think it is murder and are opposing it as such. We can and should mount political counter-attacks, but I don't think we can question their right to engage in the political process. > Even to the point of wishing a supreme court justice dead. This is certainly out of order and completely disgusting. But I must point out that it is ot limited to Christians. I remember sitting in a common room with a television were many "secular humanists" were gathered. The assasination attempt on President Reagan was announced and a rousing cheer went up from that crowd. > Religiously > inspired beliefs should not be inflicted upon you or me, and I object to > the assorted church efforts to ban abortion. > Are you sure you want to make this categorical statement concerning "religious- ly inspired beliefs"? What about those of Martin Luther King? Bishop Desmond Tutu? Mother Therese? Also, would the efforts to ban abortion be any less offensive if they were not "church efforts"? And finally, even if the causes for which you fight were supported by the church, wouldn't you feel the need to still question Christianity? I know you have already sort of answered this last question in your "search for the truth" statement, but I'm arguing a little causality here. Rel- igiously inspired beliefs are not necessarily evil, and not all evil beliefs stem from a belief in religion. > > 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 completely entitled to have and try and fallaciously elevate > > it to the level of a political mandate? > > Neither stupid nor dishonest; merely incomplete. It was just one example of > a valid, non-theological motivation that I provided when Gore tried the classic > Christian "you're really fighting because you believe and are rebellious" > argument. Once again I apologize. I don't think you are stupid or dishonest, just mistaken in this case. > > As for "mandate", I think you're exaggerating a bit. I leave it open as a matter of opinion. You do tend to use very strong language. > > > I suggest you reread the words of Dave Trissel under the light of your own > > views and be honest with yourself. > > I cite Dave Trissel because he summarizes the process that lead me to reject > Christianity. It was my search for honesty with myself that lead me to > cast aside supernaturalism in exchange for agnosticism. > -- It is important to realize that Dave Trissel can work in reverse as well. It is not impossible to read Dave Trissel and be reaffirmed in your faith. As a matter of fact, I submit that anyone, be they atheist or Christian or Mooney, who cannot answer Trissel's challenge, should not be what they are. > > "Do you want real TRUTH in capital letters? Then search yourself for why > you believe the things you do. Don't be afraid to analyze why your religion > gives you the high it does. Answer yourself this question: Is TRUTH important > enough for me to give up my religion if that is required? Until you answer > yes to this you are not being honest with yourself." Dave Trissel > -- Jason Kinchen jason@media-lab.MIT.EDU