mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/12/85)
In article <1852@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> I don't think Hitler had >> very much use for reliance on a higher power in the sense meant here, >> yet I can't think of a better example of a man who promulgated notions >> of innate racial/ethnic superiority, and for whom blind faith and >> acceptance--of his followers in him--was an essential "virtue." >No, my friend, it is your article that offers shoddy thinking. I never >claimed that religionists represent the SOLE perpetuators of these notions. >Nonetheless, those notions are perpetuated by religion, among other things. >All the modern perpetuators of those notions (Falwell, IC's, Khomeini, >Farrakhan, etc.) are either tied directly to religion (as these examples >show) or take their cues from religion, having learned the manipulative >skills they use (in such movements as Nazism and other violent nationalistic >movements) from religion. It is much more accurate to say that these things are being done IN THE NAME OF RELIGION. There simply is no justification for the statement that religion invariably gives rise to such things is simply rediculous. Jerry Falwell doesn't exemplarize Christianity anymore than Khomeini exemplarizes Islam. The fact that one commonly finds these people associated with religions is simply indicative of the tremendous intellectual power of the thing. These days, one sees bad science being misused to delude the gullible and support the disreputable as often as one sees bad religion being employed for the same purposes. And, having seen Mr. Falwell's show, there's little doubt in my mind that he does indeed represent bad religion. Rich has conveniently ignored the Marxists and a host of other morally and intellectually dubious movements to arrive at his conclusions. He seems conveniently to have forgotten the wanton destruction wrought by Pol Pot and his kind in Cambodia and Laos. The terror that is (depressingly) quite common in Africa has little to do with religion. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "I say this because I want to be prime minister of Canada some day." - M Fox
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (10/12/85)
> It is much more accurate to say that these things are being done IN THE NAME > OF RELIGION. There simply is no justification for the statement that > religion invariably gives rise to such things is simply rediculous. Jerry > Falwell doesn't exemplarize Christianity anymore than Khomeini exemplarizes > Islam. The fact that one commonly finds these people associated with > religions is simply indicative of the tremendous intellectual power of the > thing. These days, one sees bad science being misused to delude the > gullible and support the disreputable as often as one sees bad religion > being employed for the same purposes. And, having seen Mr. Falwell's show, > there's little doubt in my mind that he does indeed represent bad religion. > > Rich has conveniently ignored the Marxists and a host of other morally and > intellectually dubious movements to arrive at his conclusions. He seems > conveniently to have forgotten the wanton destruction wrought by Pol Pot and > his kind in Cambodia and Laos. The terror that is (depressingly) quite > common in Africa has little to do with religion. > > Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe There are some common attributes that many of these groups share, i.e. 1) Belief in the absolute validity of their cause. 2) Belief that the source of "truth" comes from a particular dogmatic body of information (bible/ koran/ mein kampf (sp?)/ red-book/ capital/ etc.) 3) Requirement for "faith" on the part of their adherents. 4) Existence of hierarchical power structure which relies on unquestioning obedience on the part of the members on a lower, to those on a higher, level. (church/ communist party/ nazi party/ the military/ government bureaucracy) 5) Desire to bring about moral, and not just social and/or economic goals. (salvation/ racism/ classless societies) The various groups do not necessarily have all of these properties, but they do serve to highlight the similarities between all of the above agents. In this view any system that has most of the five attributes would be considered "religious" in nature. As far as the original claim in the article is concerned, a more accurate decription would be to say that the abuses were perpetrated by "religious" groups and not religions. To try to dismiss the claim by saying that they done "in the name of religion" is like saying that dictatorships don't cause misery, only the dictators (yes I know that there is such a thing as a kindly dictator, in theory at least, but power corrupts, and the existence of a religious structure goes a long way towards facilitating usage of that power). Padraig Houlahan
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/18/85)
>>> I don't think Hitler had >>>very much use for reliance on a higher power in the sense meant here, >>>yet I can't think of a better example of a man who promulgated notions >>>of innate racial/ethnic superiority, and for whom blind faith and >>>acceptance--of his followers in him--was an essential "virtue." >>No, my friend, it is your article that offers shoddy thinking. I never >>claimed that religionists represent the SOLE perpetuators of these notions. >>Nonetheless, those notions are perpetuated by religion, among other things. >>All the modern perpetuators of those notions (Falwell, IC's, Khomeini, >>Farrakhan, etc.) are either tied directly to religion (as these examples >>show) or take their cues from religion, having learned the manipulative >>skills they use (in such movements as Nazism and other violent nationalistic >>movements) from religion. [ROSEN] > It is much more accurate to say that these things are being done IN THE NAME > OF RELIGION. There simply is no justification for the statement that > religion invariably gives rise to such things is simply rediculous. [WINGATE] Gee, I guess it's OK when religionists judge people in general as all horribly evil (often based solely on their own low self-opinion) and justify it based on history, yet doing the same sort of historical justification to show the horrors of religion is somehow "wrong". Perhaps it is religion that is "fallen" rather than "man", as they would have us believe. > Jerry Falwell doesn't exemplarize Christianity anymore than Khomeini > exemplarizes Islam. The fact that one commonly finds these people associated > with religions is simply indicative of the tremendous intellectual power of > the thing. These days, one sees bad science being misused to delude the > gullible and support the disreputable as often as one sees bad religion > being employed for the same purposes. And, having seen Mr. Falwell's show, > there's little doubt in my mind that he does indeed represent bad religion. While the sort of religion you have represented here, with its acceptance of psychological abuse of children for the purpose of converting them, with its rigid intolerance of groups it simply doesn't like, represents "good" religion? > Rich has conveniently ignored the Marxists and a host of other morally and > intellectually dubious movements to arrive at his conclusions. He seems > conveniently to have forgotten the wanton destruction wrought by Pol Pot and > his kind in Cambodia and Laos. The terror that is (depressingly) quite > common in Africa has little to do with religion. Except in that they fit into the very category I already described, that of those who have seen how religion has indoctrinated and controlled, and who follow the lead of religion in trying to do the same thing. Why would you call that "ignoring" them? -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/30/85)
>>> It is much more accurate to say that these things are being done IN THE >>> NAME OF RELIGION. There simply is no justification for the statement that >>> religion invariably gives rise to such things. [WINGATE] >> Gee, I guess it's OK when religionists judge people in general as all >> horribly evil (often based solely on their own low self-opinion) and >> justify it based on history, yet doing the same sort of historical >> justification to show the horrors of religion is somehow "wrong". [WINGATE] > Rich's first statement is merely a speculation, and in any case one could > better argue that it is those who see themselves as totally morally > justified who are the deluded ones, since it is difficult to justify > blindness, however mitigated, over sight, however poor. Have you recanted Christianity then? > And in fact the > historical justification shows merely that these sins are associated with > religion, which any honest person (myself included) will admit. Odd that you should accuse YOURSELF of HAVING BEEN DIShonest here, since you had denied this very thing in the past. > But what does this prove? Hitler took an atheistic (sort of) philosopher and > used the religious power invoked by that person to his own perverted ends. And more than once (more than TEN times) I have heard this uttered as justification for berating Nietzsche (AND Darwin!). Odd... > Various Christian communities have plucked a verse out of Leviticus (I > think) and used it to justify their own desire to murder. Did THEY (like Hitler) take the writings of philosophers and scientists, mixing them in with his own PRESUMPTIONS, to "get" to a desired conclusion? Or did they acquire the presumption RIGHT FROM THAT TEXT ITSELF? Hitler's evil was not in whom he chose to read, it was in his unfounded hateful presumptions and the way he twisted their words to "prove" them (only if you made HIS assumptions, and of course he used assumptions shared by many of the people, and of course was a master of persuasion and rhetoric). The evil of religion is right there in that passage (and the rest of the superiority tenets) of various religions. > Stalin used a mere opinion of Karl Marx's (and that opinion, I might add, > speaks volumes about the perceived power of religion) and used it to justify > his bloody supression of Jew and Christian alike. And of course Communism is essentially no different from religion, except in that it doesn't have a supernatural god to worship. But in its presumptiveness, it is no better (no different) than religion. Stalin was one of YOU, Chuck. Religionists. > All these things are perversions, deliberate abuse of the power of religion; > but all that they tell us is that religion is indeed powerful. And they also tell us something of the hate engendered by some of these religious notions. >>While the sort of religion you have represented here, with its acceptance >>of psychological abuse of children for the purpose of converting them, with >>its rigid intolerance of groups it simply doesn't like, represents "good" >>religion? > Which Christianity is this? The one you (the non-Falwellite) have presented here in the past. > And on what grounds can Rich justify indoctrinating young children against > religion? Ah, this is cute. Does anyone recall my supporting the notion of "indoctrinating children against religion"? Hardly, if anything, what I have supported is encouraging children to think for themselves, to notice when erroneous assumptions are being made, to analyze obejctively when reasoning. Charles has just referred to this as "indoctrinating children against religion". And, effectively, teaching children to think rationally might just do that. Not by intent, but as a consequence. Note that this is what religionists are complaining about when they demand the removal of the dreaded "humanism" from the schools. They are scared shitless that teaching children to think will (it has already) lead to children questioning, rejecting religious assumption. Sorry, Charlie, if that's how it works out. > Rich's religion holds no less power than any other, after all. Which religion is that? If there's any "religion" at all, it is that associated with objective reasoning and rational thinking, and, yes, that does indeed have more "power" than any other, power in the sense of force of reasoning. Which is why it should be taught in schools more than it is. >>> Rich has conveniently ignored the Marxists and a host of other morally and >>> intellectually dubious movements to arrive at his conclusions. He seems >>> conveniently to have forgotten the wanton destruction wrought by Pol Pot >>> and his kind in Cambodia and Laos. The terror that is (depressingly) quite >>> common in Africa has little to do with religion. >> Except in that they fit into the very category I already described, that of >> those who have seen how religion has indoctrinated and controlled, and who >> follow the lead of religion in trying to do the same thing. Why would you >> call that "ignoring" them? > Pol Pot certainly wasn't anything but an atheist, so Rich can hardly hang > "Religion" around his neck-- unless of course he intends to offer his own > neck as a hanging peg too. Charles ignored what I had said so completely in his quest for my neck. I said that modern Communism (as with other totalitarian) make use of the same premises that permeate certain religions---superiority, "god" is on our side, etc., and it uses the indoctrinative methods of religion to condition their subjects. > And Rich's claims about Africa simply aren't > true; tribal forces, Marxist ideology, and racism are far more important > forces than religion. In South Africa, in fact, we have large organized > churches clearly squared off on both sides of the issue (or have people > forgotten that Tutu is the Anglican bishop of Johannesburg?). So? What's your point? (And I don't recall mentioning Africa.) -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (11/01/85)
>> Rich's religion holds no less power than any other, after all. > >Which religion is that? If there's any "religion" at all, it is that >associated with objective reasoning and rational thinking, and, yes, that >does indeed have more "power" than any other, power in the sense of force >of reasoning. Which is why it should be taught in schools more than it is. > - Rich Rich, you're a swell person and all that, and I know you really mean well. But if you are the local representative for `objective reasoning and rational thinking', I do not think we'll be able to convert many of those evil religionists to the cause of Science. Maybe you'd do more for to encourage upright rational thinking if you argued for the other side. Just a thought. Science is more objective, more rational, more efficient! -michael
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/02/85)
>>> Rich's religion holds no less power than any other, after all. >>Which religion is that? If there's any "religion" at all, it is that >>associated with objective reasoning and rational thinking, and, yes, that >>does indeed have more "power" than any other, power in the sense of force >>of reasoning. Which is why it should be taught in schools more than it is. > Rich, you're a swell person and all that, and I know you really mean > well. But if you are the local representative for `objective > reasoning and rational thinking', I do not think we'll be able > to convert many of those evil religionists to the cause > of Science. Who said I *was* such a "representative"? > Maybe you'd do more for to encourage upright rational thinking > if you argued for the other side. Just a thought. Is that the tactic you've been taking with your own articles on "smash skinnerism" and "acausality giving us free will"? Brilliant!!!!!! > Science is more objective, more rational, more efficient! But religion, with extra added VOOMSQUOLL, cleans and brightens while saving your soul and giving your laundry purpose! -- "Mrs. Peel, we're needed..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr