janc@uofm-cv.UUCP (Jan D. Wolter) (10/07/83)
Oh lovely! Now we have a new suppressed minority in America!
With Christians joining the list, I do believe just about every
man, woman and child now has the honor of being descriminated
against. Of course, in a sense it is true. If you believe in
imposing your beliefs on other people (and don't we all) then
somebody's right to express their beliefs are going to have to be
suppressed.
I can't resist addressing some of Gary Samuelson's more ludicrous
complaints.
In some towns, it is illegal for Christians to have regular Bible
studies in their homes, without a permit. It violates zoning
ordinances.
Is it legal for, say, Jews to do the same? I doubt it. You're
not descriminated against unless somebody else is getting what
you're not. If my religion is capitolism, should I be allowed
to open a K-Mart anywhere I want? This does raise an interesting
question though: Should atheists be required to obtain a permit
for regularly holding no religious services in their homes?
It is illegal to pray in a public school. (This may be technically
incorrect, but that is the way the general public perceives the law.)
Oh wonderful! Oh circular! A masterpiece of a paragraph! First
you complain it is illegal, then you admit in a whisper that it
isn't really illegal--people just think it is. Why do people think
it's illegal? Why, because people like Gary are alway saying it's
illegal (but whispering that it isn't). The impression you're
complaining about was created by Bible Thumpers who were trying to
stampede people into making prayer manditory. (I really have to
thank Gary for this little paragraph--it is a gem I will treasure
for all my days.)
It is illegal to teach that the world was created by an intelligent
creator in the public schools. But it is legal, and practically
mandatory, to teach that the world originated as a result of random
(unintelligent) processes. Neither statement can be scientifically
verified or disproved.
This is a more mundane species of nonsense. Evolution is the process
by which species develop and and change. It is in no way incompatible
with the belief that the universe is a result of a divine plan. The problem
arises because the word "random" is popularly misunderstood. We say a dice
roll is "random", but, given the initial velocity, and a lot of other
information, I can predict every bounce and roll. Nothing chaotic is
happening. Normally however I can't predict the final position because
the analysis is too complex. It is beyond my ability to predict the
result of a specific roll, so I use probabilities to allow me to say
something about how things work out in the long run. The mere fact that
I'm too stupid to predict dice rolls, doesn't mean that dies roll
chaotically. I'm also too stupid to predict what God will do next.
Thus I call "Acts of God" random events. I can't predict who will die
in auto accidents, but I can predict how many will occur. Modeling
God as a random process doesn't mean that he act unintellegently--it
only means I don't know enough about Him to predict his every action.
The fact that evolution is based on random change does not mean that
God isn't the reason behind it. That evolution happens is completely
undeniable--people who try are only making fools of themselves. Thus
we teach it in schools. Why evolution happens, we can't prove. If you
believe God is behind it, that is a matter of faith, and does not belong
in the schools.
It is illegal to teach Christian moral values in public schools.
But it is legal to teach anti-Christian moral values.
Religon is not morality. I was raised entirely without any kind of
formal religon. A lot of Christians who learn this suspect I must be
totally without any kind of morality. The first time I encountered
this, I was amazed by the incredible narrow-minded chauvinism presented
by this attitude. The idea that everyone who is not a member of your
church is evil stunned me. Is THAT what is meant by Christen Morality?
Sorry to disappoint you, I'm an excessively moral person by almost any
measure. It is illegal to teach religion, but it is legal to teach
morality.
In the job market, Christians are discriminated against if they won't
"play the game," which means lie, cheat, and steal like everybody
else.
Christian People = Moral People, right? Sorry, those are independent
variables. Nobody promised you that being a good guy would be an
advantage in the rat race. If that is your motivation for being a
good guy, then you arn't one.
Oh well, I don't know why I bother. People who agree with Gary won't
like it, and won't be the least bit impressed by anything accept the
crack about atheists needing permits, which they will appropriate as
an arguement on there side, neglecting the falacy as usual. You can't
really resolve anything logically. You can show up contradictions in
your assumptions, but the question of which assumptions to alter takes
place on the level of feelings and beliefs, where those assumptions
originate. That fact that Gary and I resolve contradictions differently
arises from differences in our basic beliefs. No amount of argueing
is going to resolve this.
--- Jan D. Wolter
University of Michiganlaura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (10/12/83)
Jan D. Wolter writes:
Of course, in a sense it is true. If you believe in imposing your
beliefs on other people (and don't we all) then somebody's right to
express their beliefs are going to have to be suppressed.
I got news for you -- There are an awful lot of people who do not
believe in imposing their beliefs on other people. Given that most of
them have historically drawn away from society and joined Monastic
orders is no reason to deny their existance. I find the thought of
IMPOSING my beliefs on others repugnant in the extreme. I do not think
that this is the same thing as welcoming them in their attempts to
impose their beliefs upon me, however.
I am hardly alone -- when is the last time you were accosted by an
Orthodox Jew who tried to impose his religious beliefs upon you? Or a
Buddhist? or any number of faiths I could mention whose NAMES you are
unlikely to have heard of unless you take an interest in other
religions? Seems like "imposing your belief on others" is not a
universal Truth shared by all...
Something tells me, though, from the rest of your article, that what
you call 'supress someone's right to express their belief' and what I
do are rather different things. I probably do not object to what you
are talking about, but I do object to your terminology.
What I think that you mean is that certain actions are bound to be
prohibited by society. i would agree -- murder and rape, which spring
to mind, are fine examples of actions which should be prohibited under
any sort of legal code.
However, "murdering someone" really does not sound like "allowing
someone to express his belief that someone should be dead". it sounds
like "suppressing someone's belief that he should be alive".
You do not get a lot of violence out of letting people have their own
beliefs, unless they happen to have the belief that their belief is THE
TRUTH, and thus in some way they have the right (usually the Divine
Right) to force you to correspond to it. However, i find it impractical
to define 'belief' in such a way that it allows you to enforce it on
other people. Once you get into the business of forcing other people
you have got out of the category of 'belief' even 'expressed belief'
and have got into something very different.
I think that this difference should be maintained through all further
discussion. Otherwise it is too easy to condone the action of someone
who "is only expressing his belief ...". Unfortunately this sort of
reasoning has been used to allow atrocities in the past, and is likely
to be used so again in the future.
laura creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!lauraodom@uiucuxc.UUCP (10/26/83)
#R:uofm-cv:-27300:uiucuxc:21200011:000:377
uiucuxc!odom Oct 25 11:05:00 1983
You bother (or at least, i presume you bother) because
like many other nice, normal, rational folks you would
like everyone to tolerate, if not understand, that
different points of view are not necessarily evil or
good. at least that's how i usually get sucked into
these arguments. anyways, for what it's worth, ditto.
susan odom