mat@hou4b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (01/05/85)
As I was walking past a colleague's desk, I picked up a copy of Heinlein's
``Friday''. The story takes place in the wreckage of earth future. I flipped
though it, and came up against a paragraph which described how the Catholic
Church claimed that people who were the product of genetic engineering were
not human, did not have immortal souls, etc.
A couple of years ago, I flipped through another scifi book about the wreckage
of earth future, and the church was depicted as a medevial inquisition. The
sacrament of Penance was turned into torture-confess-execute, and the
accusations included ``having sex with an unblessed [ie untaxed] prostitute''.
If I recall, H.G.Wells had a heavy anti-religion bias, but confined it mostly
to public debates with Chesterton and published essays. I don't know for sure.
Are my observations typical of scifi writings? If so, why? Is perversion of
religion just a good way to depict a damaged society? Or do these writers
consider religion a malady of society? And is the Catholic Church singled out
the way that IBM is singled out when we think of computers -- ``They have an
IBM machine'', or do these writers have a grudge against Catholicism ?
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuqui Q. Koala) (01/06/85)
>If I recall, H.G.Wells had a heavy anti-religion bias, but confined it mostly >to public debates with Chesterton and published essays. I don't know for sure. > >Are my observations typical of scifi writings? If so, why? Is perversion of >religion just a good way to depict a damaged society? Or do these writers >consider religion a malady of society? And is the Catholic Church singled out >the way that IBM is singled out when we think of computers -- ``They have an >IBM machine'', or do these writers have a grudge against Catholicism ? Wells got in his digs as much as anyone-- look at 'Things To Come' for instance, and there are sub-themes in both 'Food of the Gods' and 'Time Machine'. No, I don't think your observations are any more typical of SF (scifi? ugh!) than they are of any other genre or media. How many evil priests show up on TV and movies? There are certainly a number of 'free-thinking' SF authors, as well as agnostics and true athiests, but that is true of the population in general. If you are interested in looking for SF books that show religion in an intelligent and thoughtful way, I suggest you track down 'A Case of Conscience' by James Blish, 'A Canticle for Leibowitz' by Walter MIller, or 'Behold the Man' by Michael Moorcock. A very interesting book about religion from a less traditional view is 'Black Easter', also by Blish, and its companion 'Day ofter Judgement'. An interesting short that comes to mind is 'The Star' by A.C. Clarke. I wouldn't call any of these stories pro-religious propoganda, but I also don't believe any of them to be blatantly anti-religious. Their basic purpose is to look at religion and make you think about it and I think they are all fair (some more than others) to religion as a concept. chuq (someone is gonna flame me for Behold the Man... I can feel it already) -- From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Now look here Mister "I'm not just a word processor"...
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (01/07/85)
Mark Terrible writes: > As I was walking past a colleague's desk, I picked up a copy of Heinlein's > ``Friday''. The story takes place in the wreckage of earth future. I flipped > though it, and came up against a paragraph which described how the Catholic > Church claimed that people who were the product of genetic engineering were > not human, did not have immortal souls, etc. > >A couple of years ago, I flipped through another scifi book about the wreckage > of earth future, and the church was depicted as a medevial inquisition. The > sacrament of Penance was turned into torture-confess-execute, and the >accusations included ``having sex with an unblessed [ie untaxed] prostitute''. > Are my observations typical of scifi writings? If so, why? Is perversion of > religion just a good way to depict a damaged society? Or do these writers > consider religion a malady of society? And is the Catholic Church singled out > the way that IBM is singled out when we think of computers -- ``They have an > IBM machine'', or do these writers have a grudge against Catholicism ? I seem to remember reading another story once where the man who discovered the fact that the earth revolves around the sun was put on trial by the catholic church for heresy. And another where some religious nuts run something called the 'Spanish Inquisition', where they tortured lots of innocent people. And another story where religious people accused each other of being 'witches' and burned, hung, tortured, crushed beneath stones, etc each other. Those writers must really have some kind of private grudge against religion! I guess I'll just have to agree with Mark Terrible on this one. :-) Wait a minute! I just remembered where I read those stories! My high school history class. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Hey, my new .signature file really works!"
franka@hercules.UUCP (Frank Adrian) (01/07/85)
In article <1253@hou4b.UUCP> mat@hou4b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) writes: > >Are my observations typical of scifi writings? If so, why? Is perversion of >religion just a good way to depict a damaged society? Or do these writers >consider religion a malady of society? And is the Catholic Church singled out >the way that IBM is singled out when we think of computers -- ``They have an >IBM machine'', or do these writers have a grudge against Catholicism ? >-- Are science fiction writers, as a class, more or less religious? Well, as a class, there are those in both camps. However the majority seem to have a bias against oppression and oppressive religion in general. In any society there are certain "power bases". For example, in Central America today, the power bases are the land owners, the military, and the church. The interaction among these power groups are the major influnce upon the flux of society. When a science fiction writer hypothesises a future history, one of the assumptions is that the world will have powerful groups wishing to maintain or extend their power. One of the most tenacious and powerful groups throughout history has been religion. And at some points in time, the institutions deriving their power from this group, have been corrupt. The inquisition is the best documented case of this nature. The Holy Roman Catholic Church is still the largest monolithic religion in the world (and appears that it will be for some time). If any institution survives a holocaust of some sort, I would put my money on the CC. And since a post-holocaust society would lose most of the external checks and balances upon the power of the church, it is VERY possible that the church could return to its inquisitive past (for every St. Francis in the church, there have been at least two Torquemadas). Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and all that jazz. This is the reason why religions (which have never been too tolerant to begin with) and the Catholic Church, in particular, have been singled out as oppressors in most post-holocaust scenarios (although as of late, the fundamentalists are gaining more popularity in this respect). Same as it ever was... Frank Adrian
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/08/85)
>[from Jeff Sonntag:] >I seem to remember reading another story once where the man who discovered the >fact that the earth revolves around the sun was put on trial by the catholic >church for heresy. And another where some religious nuts run something called >the 'Spanish Inquisition', where they tortured lots of innocent people. And >another story where religious people accused each other of being 'witches' >and burned, hung, tortured, crushed beneath stones, etc each other. Those >writers must really have some kind of private grudge against religion! I >guess I'll just have to agree with Mark Terrible on this one. :-) > Wait a minute! I just remembered where I read those stories! My high >school history class. Forgive me for even bothering with this response, but there is still something that bothers me about tounge-in-cheek statements like this. The lop-sided evidence Jeff marshalls against religion only seems to reveal his own private grudge against it. A more balanced approach to history might reveal far greater atrocities in countries where religious belief is routed and atheism is the rule. In those cases it is often claimed that such perfideous actions had nothing to do with the religious belief (or lack thereof) of their perpetrators. It's just a little strange that that it is often inferred that the religious beliefs (especially if they are Christian beliefs) have a direct causual link with things like the Inquisition and Salem Witch Trials. Rather than discuss Mark's question relating to contemporary science fiction works, Jeff seems to be trying to justify the anti-religious bias Mark seems to find there. It's easy to tack a ':-)' onto things and claim you are just fooling around. Nevertheless, I can't help put think that such oft repeated remarks tend to inclucate an attitude of intolerance, the hallmark of which it the impression that there is nothing whatever good about religion. It implies that the Inquisitors were living up to the highest standards of Christian morality. I find such belief to be equally, if not more, dangerous as that of the Inquisitors. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (01/09/85)
>>[from Jeff Sonntag:] >>I seem to remember reading another story once where the man who discovered the >>fact that the earth revolves around the sun was put on trial by the catholic >>church for heresy. And another where some religious nuts run something called >>the 'Spanish Inquisition', where they tortured lots of innocent people. And >>another story where religious people accused each other of being 'witches' >>and burned, hung, tortured, crushed beneath stones, etc each other. Those >>writers must really have some kind of private grudge against religion! I >>guess I'll just have to agree with Mark Terrible on this one. :-) >> Wait a minute! I just remembered where I read those stories! My high >>school history class. > Forgive me for even bothering with this response, but there is still something > that bothers me about tounge-in-cheek statements like this. The lop-sided > evidence Jeff marshalls against religion only seems to reveal his own private > grudge against it. [PAUL DUBUC] Forgive me, too. Why is it that when religious believers proclaim "Humanism/ scientism/anti-religionism is permeating our society, and this is bad because it deteriorates religious belief" or some such variant, they offer no real evidence that their negative wishful thinking on the subject of a non-religious future is well founded? Yet when someone offers historical perspective on the dangers of religion, it is labelled as slanderous. Quite a double standard there. > A more balanced approach to history might reveal far > greater atrocities in countries where religious belief is routed and atheism > is the rule. In those cases it is often claimed that such perfideous actions > had nothing to do with the religious belief (or lack thereof) of their > perpetrators. It's just a little strange that that it is often inferred that > the religious beliefs (especially if they are Christian beliefs) have a > direct causual link with things like the Inquisition and Salem Witch Trials. Look at what the people were tried for: not adhering to religious rules, being different from the standards for the community set by religious oligarchies. It's not strange at all; it *is* quite strange for you to try to foist the opposite viewpoint upon us as fact. I'd venture that the "atheist" countries you describe are far from humanist (whatever that means) in their goals for society. Such countries have the same structure as those with religious despotry or tyranny, the only difference being that the people who reap the power and/or exercise the control are NOT the religious oligarchy. It appears that the only real complaint that the religious leadership would have with such atheistic tyranny is that THEY have been left out of the power loop. (I know, they're *really* not power-hungry, just looking out for people's real interests. Right...) -- "Does the body rule the mind or does the mind rule the body? I dunno." Rich Rosen {ihnp4 | harpo}!pyuxd!rlr
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuqui Q. Koala) (01/11/85)
> >>[from Jeff Sonntag:] >>I seem to remember reading another story once where the man who discovered the >>fact that the earth revolves around the sun was put on trial by the catholic >>church for heresy. And another where some religious nuts run something called >>the 'Spanish Inquisition', where they tortured lots of innocent people. And >>another story where religious people accused each other of being 'witches' >>and burned, hung, tortured, crushed beneath stones, etc each other. Those >>writers must really have some kind of private grudge against religion! I >>guess I'll just have to agree with Mark Terrible on this one. :-) >> Wait a minute! I just remembered where I read those stories! My high >>school history class. > >Forgive me for even bothering with this response, but there is still something >that bothers me about tounge-in-cheek statements like this. The lop-sided >evidence Jeff marshalls against religion only seems to reveal his own private >grudge against it. A more balanced approach to history might reveal far >greater atrocities in countries where religious belief is routed and atheism >is the rule. In those cases it is often claimed that such perfideous actions >had nothing to do with the religious belief (or lack thereof) of their >perpetrators. It's just a little strange that that it is often inferred that >the religious beliefs (especially if they are Christian beliefs) have a >direct causual link with things like the Inquisition and Salem Witch Trials. The thing to remember that the people who did all of those wonderful atrocities weren't really religious people at all-- they only RAN the church, something completely different. Faith and religion isn't the organization, it is the feeling, and you will always find those that will attempt to pervert your beliefs to their own purposes. Smart people see through these shameless shams, the rest send money to Jerry Falwell. -- From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Now look here Mister "I'm not just a word processor"...
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/11/85)
}>>[from Jeff Sonntag:] }>>I seem to remember reading another story once where the man }>>who discovered the }>>fact that the earth revolves around the sun was put on trial by the catholic }>>church for heresy. And another where some religious nuts run something }>>called }>>the 'Spanish Inquisition', where they tortured lots of innocent people. And }>>another story where religious people accused each other of being 'witches' }>>and burned, hung, tortured, crushed beneath stones, etc each other. Those }>>writers must really have some kind of private grudge against religion! I }>>guess I'll just have to agree with Mark Terrible on this one. :-) }>> Wait a minute! I just remembered where I read those stories! My high }>>school history class. } }> Forgive me for even bothering with this response, but there is }> still something }> that bothers me about tounge-in-cheek statements like this. The lop-sided }> evidence Jeff marshalls against religion only seems to reveal his own private }> grudge against it. [PAUL DUBUC] } }Forgive me, too. Why is it that when religious believers proclaim "Humanism/ }scientism/anti-religionism is permeating our society, and this is bad because }it deteriorates religious belief" or some such variant, they offer no real }evidence that their negative wishful thinking on the subject of a non-religious }future is well founded? Yet when someone offers historical perspective on the }dangers of religion, it is labelled as slanderous. Quite a double standard }there. [Rich Rosen] Are you accusing me some something specific, Rich? If so, I wish you would document it. Why do you speak of "they" when responding to me? Is this a response to me or "them"? If I knew who "they" were and what exactly they were saying (who are you quoting above?) I might be able to agree with you that "they" shouldn't be doing what they do. But even if I did agree that still wouldn't justify Jeff's statements. Is that what you are trying to do? The point of my article (sorry you missed that, read it again if you care) was that Jeff's statements are not a valid historical perspective on the "dangers" of religion. } }> A more balanced approach to history might reveal far }> greater atrocities in countries where religious belief is routed and atheism }> is the rule. In those cases it is often claimed that such perfideous actions }> had nothing to do with the religious belief (or lack thereof) of their }> perpetrators. It's just a little strange that that it is often inferred that }> the religious beliefs (especially if they are Christian beliefs) have a }> direct causual link with things like the Inquisition and Salem Witch Trials. } }Look at what the people were tried for: not adhering to religious rules, }being different from the standards for the community set by religious }oligarchies. It's not strange at all; it *is* quite strange for you to try to }foist the opposite viewpoint upon us as fact. I'd venture that the "atheist" }countries you describe are far from humanist (whatever that means) in }their goals for society. Such countries have the same structure as those with }religious despotry or tyranny, the only difference being that the people who }reap the power and/or exercise the control are NOT the religious oligarchy. }It appears that the only real complaint that the religious leadership would }have with such atheistic tyranny is that THEY have been left out of the power }loop. (I know, they're *really* not power-hungry, just looking out for }people's real interests. Right...) We are talking about history, Rich. Do I have to spell it out to you? Stalin's Purge. The Gulag. The invasions of Cambodia and Afganistan. No freedom of the press, speech or religion (I know, you don't care about religion). No USENET! :-) Are you comfortable with these? Are these humanistic? I learned a long time ago that I should not judge atheism by actions like these (though I still don't know what standard they do accept for their actions). Why do you and Jeff persist in implying that similar actions are inherent to the Christian standard of belief (i.e. the Bible)? I don't see any justification for the Inquisition in the ethics of Christ as taught in the Bible. It wasn't until after the Reformation that Bible literacy became widespread (the printing press came into use during Luther's time). The Bible was translated into common languages (an offense that was punished violently by the church). This was probably the major factor that unified Germany's language and increased the literacy rate. Books were still scarce, but if someone had any book at all it was probably the Bible. The Reformation emphasis on the priesthood of the believer and personal study of the Scriptures greatly undermined abusive authority in the church. Even Luther's own bigoted admonishments against the Jews resulted in little persecution of them in his time. It is horrible that the Nazis were able to stir up those sentiments a few centuries later. Some persist in identifying biblical Christianity with Nazism. Poor Detrich Bonhoeffer (sp?). He died for nothing, in that case. That still leaves isolated horrors like Salem. But they were isolated. Salem can easily be viewed as a miniature of the situation that existed over most of Europe prior to the Reformation. These, along with the atheistic communist atrocies I mentioned are more of a lesson against the dangers seemingly inherent in absolute authority whether those in authority adhere to a particular religious belief or not. Those in power are able to twist the Bible to support self-serving ends and stifel corrective input. (This was often done to rally support for our own American Revolution, BTW. I think we generally consider the consequenses of that to be favorable.) If I were living in Salem knowing what I do now about Scriptural teaching I would have to oppose the witch trials--and probably been burned with them if I did. The situation was prone to paranoia; no one could just move to the next town to avoid the escalation of trouble. At any rate, the carnage imputed to Christians, especially since the Reformation, has nowhere near approched the magnitude of anti- religious regimes even in our own century. Anyone who is going to make a case againt religion using such critera had better realise that there is a much stronger case for religion using those same criteria. It is a very lop-sided use (abuse, rather) of historical fact to pretend that things like the Reformation never happened and to imply that actions like those done in the Inquisition are inherent in the religion I espouse. What other purpose does it serve to dig up the Inquisition as far as present day Christians or biblical belief are concerned? I fear for the lives of the next generation of Christians if this attitude is not given up. You can point you finger all you want at the intolerant attitude of many Christians. It will never justify your own attitude. Well, I've rambled on too long and have the feeling it won't do much good, but I want to emphasize the point I was trying to make in my last article: To pluck specific examples of abuse out of thier historical context for the purpose of presenting an "historical analysis" that those instances are inherent dangers in religious belief only paves the way for future intolerance of that religion. This is an attititude that is no less dangerous than that of the Inquisitors. It promotes the bigoted notion that there is nothng whatever good about religion. Does Germany owe no debt to Luther? England owe none to Wesley? We owe none to organizations like the Salvation Army and Rescue Mission? Come now; I thought you nonreligious folks were above the bias you so often attribute to Chrisians. Is anybody listening? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/13/85)
Sorry, Chuqui, but if you read Latin you can get out a lot of
letters and records of inquisitors, and witch-burners and read them.
Most of these people *really* and *truly* believed that they were
on a divine mission to stamp out evil. Most of this was coupled with
a belief that these were ``the last days''. Their confessions read
as the Confessions of St. Augustine (though not really as well --
Augustine having written what is arguably the best work of literature
in the Latin language) -- extremely sincere, and extremely concerned
and well-intentioned.
Now one can say ``God doesn't want Christians to commit atrocities''
``these people committed atrocities'' therefore ``they were not good
Christians (where ``good'' in this context means acting in accordance
with God's will)'' but you are going to have to accept that these
people had a different definition of ``atrocity'' than we have. For
them, the ``atrocity'' was the existence of {witches/heretics/pagans/atheists}
not their removal.
Look beyond Salem if you want to look at these more carefully. The Salem
witch trials are not exemplary of witch trials at all.
The scariest question is, what atrocities are we committing *now* while
equally well convinced that we are doing the ``right'' or even the ``holy''
thing?
Laura Creighton
utzoo!laurachuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuqui Q. Koala) (01/14/85)
[THANKS TO CHUQ FOR THE USE OF MACDUFF] >The point of my article (sorry you missed that, read it again if you care) >was that Jeff's statements are not a valid historical perspective on the >"dangers" of religion. [PAUL DUBUC] The point of *my* article (apparently YOU missed THAT) was that it WAS a very valid historical perspective. You might disagree, but the evidence contradicts that viewpoint. >We are talking about history, Rich. Do I have to spell it out to you? >Stalin's Purge. The Gulag. The invasions of Cambodia and Afganistan. >No freedom of the press, speech or religion (I know, you don't care about >religion). No USENET! :-) The Salem witch trials. The Spanish Inquisition. (No, I'm not going to say it.) The pogroms. Later in your article you describe these as "isolated incidents" (while the incidents mentioned above you arbitrarily choose not to refer to as "isolated"). More on this later. >Are you comfortable with these? Are these humanistic? I learned a >long time ago that I should not judge atheism by actions like these ... No, you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't be doing it now. No, they're clearly not "humanistic". They simply represent an example of non-religion that emulates the abuse of religious power that came before it. >Why do you and Jeff persist in implying that similar actions >are inherent to the Christian standard of belief (i.e. the Bible)? For the same reason that you persist in implying that the actions are inherent to any non-Christian standard of belief. Only more evidence has been presented that shows that the mindset that advocates religious control of people's lives (if you can't convince them that listening to your ideals is the best way, use a torture device) leads to (and, in fact, justifies, by some obscure line of thinking) that type of action. >I don't see any justification for the Inquisition in the ethics of Christ >as taught in the Bible. Others did. And some still do. >Even Luther's own bigoted admonishments against the Jews resulted >in little persecution of them in his time. It is horrible that the Nazis >were able to stir up those sentiments a few centuries later. Yeah, real horrible. Just goes to show what such beliefs about superiority/inferiority of one's own/other people's beliefs/lives/etc. lead to. (I guess such things didn't happen in *his* time because it took some amount of time for his admonishments to be "interpreted" in the more "correct" way.) >That still leaves isolated horrors like Salem. But they were isolated. >Salem can easily be viewed as a miniature of the situation that existed >over most of Europe prior to the Reformation. How can "a miniature of the situation that existed over most of Europe" be referred to as "isolated"? >These, along with the >atheistic communist atrocies I mentioned are more of a lesson against >the dangers seemingly inherent in absolute authority whether those in >authority adhere to a particular religious belief or not. Absolutely. >Those in power are able to twist the Bible to support self-serving ends and >stifel corrective input. This is happening as we speak. >no one could just move to the next town to avoid the escalation of >trouble. At any rate, the carnage imputed to Christians, especially >since the Reformation, has nowhere near approched the magnitude of anti- >religious regimes even in our own century. Anyone who is going to make >a case againt religion using such critera had better realise that there >is a much stronger case for religion using those same criteria. >It is a very lop-sided use (abuse, rather) of historical fact to pretend that >things like the Reformation never happened and to imply that actions like >those done in the Inquisition are inherent in the religion I espouse. "Things like the Reformation" (which helped perpetuate some of the same attitude that preceded it in things like the Inquisition) hardly constitute some great sudden leap forward in human dignity as you seem to say. It is more similar to a mass murderer agreeing henceforth only to maim people: better, but not much, and still quite bad. > What >other purpose does it serve to dig up the Inquisition as far as present >day Christians or biblical belief are concerned? I fear for the lives >of the next generation of Christians if this attitude is not given up. Yeah, me, too. I remember that article someone wrote a few months ago that talked about the future in which Christians would be persecuted and derided the way today's Christians do to others. Perhaps this is what Paul fears in a non-religious directed world. But this is nothing more than projection. He is worried that he will be treated no better by a non-religious world than the way his antecedents treated other people who didn't adhere to the religious line. This is perhaps a legitimate fear. With such a mentality of superiority so widespread, it's not unlikely that that phase of it would be duplicated in a non-religious world. The idea behind spreading more rational modes of thought is that hopefully more rational modes of morality will prevail. Paul clearly equates non-religion with anti-religion, in the sense that "anti" implies some form of suppression. It ain't necessarily so. If you work so that it doesn't become so. -- From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Do not wait until tomorrow to tell someone you care. Tomorrow doesn't always come.
ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (01/14/85)
In article <2163@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuqui Q. Koala) writes: > If you are interested in looking for SF books that > show religion in an intelligent and thoughtful way, I suggest you track > down 'A Case of Conscience' by James Blish, 'A Canticle for Leibowitz' by > Walter MIller, or 'Behold the Man' by Michael Moorcock. A very interesting > book about religion from a less traditional view is 'Black Easter', also by > Blish, and its companion 'Day ofter Judgement'. An interesting short that > comes to mind is 'The Star' by A.C. Clarke. I wouldn't call any of these > stories pro-religious propoganda, but I also don't believe any of them to > be blatantly anti-religious. Their basic purpose is to look at religion and > make you think about it and I think they are all fair (some more than > others) to religion as a concept. I don't know about the SF books mentioned above, but I do know of a SF trilogy by C. S. Lewis that is quite good. Though religion is not specificaly mentioned, the books have analogies to religion as the base of their story line. I have read them two or three times and they are very interesting. But wouldn't you know it, I'm at work and I can only remember the name of the first book in the trilogy. I will post the other titles later I guess. The first book is called Perelandra. Although some parts of the last book contains what some might call graphic violence, I would suggest this as good reading to any Christian SF fan. ------------------------ Ken Nichols ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (01/15/85)
How can anyone fail to see that the Bible forbids witch burnings and the murder of heretics? It's as clear as the nose on your face. No one who really studies the Bible could possibly participate in a witch burning or a lynching of heretics. Those people just aren't Christians. For instance, consider the early Israelites, who were the vessels for the first pure revelation from God. Every so often, a few would turn up who converted to another religion. But do you think those Israelites, under the command of God's own prophet Moses, had them killed? He did? Well, maybe that's not a good example. Let's look in the Mosaic law instead, I know it says something about witches there, something loving, kind, and tolerant -- ah, here it is, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." No, it must have been something else I was thinking of -- I just can't find the commandment to tolerate apostacy and witchcraft right now, that's all. I'm sure it's in there. Ah, here's a good story that shows what I mean. These two priests of some other religion were around, and one of the prophets decided to arrange a friendly contest, to show who was really boss. The two priests' god couldn't light a carcass that was left up on top of a hill, but old Yod-Hay-Vau-Hay showed those suckers! He lit the thing right up! And then the people took the two priests and rent them limb fro -- oops, I forgot that part. Look, I'm sure there are plenty of stories and commandments in the Old Testament about how we should tolerate other religions, and tolerate divergences of belief within the religion of God. There must be. After all, witch-burnings and the Inquisition were bad things, right? So they must be against the Bible. I'll let you know as soon as I find the quotes that prove that. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
mat@hou4b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (01/16/85)
To Laura: > The scariest question is, what atrocities are we committing *now* while > equally well convinced that we are doing the ``right'' or even the ``holy'' > thing? ``What atrocities?'' If you want to know, I suggest that you read ``Intrepid's Last Case'', if you have not already done so. Then read ``A Man Called Intrepid.'' Next, look at the political situation in Europe and the UK and the US prior to WWII. Then look at today's political climate. Look at today's political activists. And then think about how close a scrape WWI was. We almost lost that one. We have not learned since then. (I posted this because I think it is too important to let this question go by.) -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (01/16/85)
Ken Nichols, on religion in SF: > ... I do know of a SF > trilogy by C. S. Lewis that is quite good. Though religion is not > specificaly mentioned, the books have analogies to religion as the base > of their story line. I have read them two or three times and they are > very interesting. But wouldn't you know it, I'm at work and I can only > remember the name of the first book in the trilogy. I will post the > other titles later I guess. The first book is called Perelandra. > > Although some parts of the last book contains what some might call graphic > violence, I would suggest this as good reading to any Christian SF fan. The three books are: "Out of the Silent Planet," "Perelandra," and "That Hideous Strength." I'm not sure what Ken would consider a specific mention of religion; it is pretty clear to me that religion is a key element in this trilogy (often referred to as Lewis's Space Trilogy). "Out of the Silent Planet" deals with yet another case of humanity's self-acclaimed finest running roughshod over an ostensibly primitive society. But in this case, the Lord of the planet, Oyarsa, is no mere superstition, and has a few tricks up his, ah, incorporealness. The setting is Mars, known by its inhabitants as Malacandra. "Perelandra" deals with the awakening of life on Venus, where the first man and the first woman are facing the first temptation, with two of the earthmen from the first book on hand to try to sway the woman's decision. "That Hideous Strength" concerns the struggle between the Oyarsa of the earth and other Oyeresu to determine the destiny of the earth's inhabitants. The conflict is played out by their respective human agents, though almost none of the agents for either side know exactly who is behind it all. The above summaries are deliberately vague; I didn't want to spoil anything. I second Ken's recommendation, though. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (01/17/85)
In article <334@qantel.UUCP> ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) writes: >I don't know about the SF books mentioned above, but I do know of a SF >trilogy by C. S. Lewis that is quite good. Though religion is not >specificaly mentioned, the books have analogies to religion as the base >of their story line. I have read them two or three times and they are >very interesting. But wouldn't you know it, I'm at work and I can only >remember the name of the first book in the trilogy. I will post the >other titles later I guess. The first book is called Perelandra. > Actually that's the second book, the series is: Out of the Silent Planet Perelandra That Hiddeous Strength -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|burdvax|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn) (01/22/85)
[Originally this article appeared, accidentally, under Chuqui's name. I am reposting so that replies and followups may be addressed accordingly.] ----------------------------------------------- [THANKS TO CHUQ FOR THE USE OF MACDUFF] >The point of my article (sorry you missed that, read it again if you care) >was that Jeff's statements are not a valid historical perspective on the >"dangers" of religion. [PAUL DUBUC] The point of *my* article (apparently YOU missed THAT) was that it WAS a very valid historical perspective. You might disagree, but the evidence contradicts that viewpoint. >We are talking about history, Rich. Do I have to spell it out to you? >Stalin's Purge. The Gulag. The invasions of Cambodia and Afganistan. >No freedom of the press, speech or religion (I know, you don't care about >religion). No USENET! :-) The Salem witch trials. The Spanish Inquisition. (No, I'm not going to say it.) The pogroms. Later in your article you describe these as "isolated incidents" (while the incidents mentioned above you arbitrarily choose not to refer to as "isolated"). More on this later. >Are you comfortable with these? Are these humanistic? I learned a >long time ago that I should not judge atheism by actions like these ... No, you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't be doing it now. No, they're clearly not "humanistic". They simply represent an example of non-religion that emulates the abuse of religious power that came before it. >Why do you and Jeff persist in implying that similar actions >are inherent to the Christian standard of belief (i.e. the Bible)? For the same reason that you persist in implying that the actions are inherent to any non-Christian standard of belief. Only more evidence has been presented that shows that the mindset that advocates religious control of people's lives (if you can't convince them that listening to your ideals is the best way, use a torture device) leads to (and, in fact, justifies, by some obscure line of thinking) that type of action. >I don't see any justification for the Inquisition in the ethics of Christ >as taught in the Bible. Others did. And some still do. >Even Luther's own bigoted admonishments against the Jews resulted >in little persecution of them in his time. It is horrible that the Nazis >were able to stir up those sentiments a few centuries later. Yeah, real horrible. Just goes to show what such beliefs about superiority/inferiority of one's own/other people's beliefs/lives/etc. lead to. (I guess such things didn't happen in *his* time because it took some amount of time for his admonishments to be "interpreted" in the more "correct" way.) >That still leaves isolated horrors like Salem. But they were isolated. >Salem can easily be viewed as a miniature of the situation that existed >over most of Europe prior to the Reformation. How can "a miniature of the situation that existed over most of Europe" be referred to as "isolated"? >These, along with the >atheistic communist atrocies I mentioned are more of a lesson against >the dangers seemingly inherent in absolute authority whether those in >authority adhere to a particular religious belief or not. Absolutely. >Those in power are able to twist the Bible to support self-serving ends and >stifel corrective input. This is happening as we speak. >no one could just move to the next town to avoid the escalation of >trouble. At any rate, the carnage imputed to Christians, especially >since the Reformation, has nowhere near approched the magnitude of anti- >religious regimes even in our own century. Anyone who is going to make >a case againt religion using such critera had better realise that there >is a much stronger case for religion using those same criteria. >It is a very lop-sided use (abuse, rather) of historical fact to pretend that >things like the Reformation never happened and to imply that actions like >those done in the Inquisition are inherent in the religion I espouse. "Things like the Reformation" (which helped perpetuate some of the same attitude that preceded it in things like the Inquisition) hardly constitute some great sudden leap forward in human dignity as you seem to say. It is more similar to a mass murderer agreeing henceforth only to maim people: better, but not much, and still quite bad. > What >other purpose does it serve to dig up the Inquisition as far as present >day Christians or biblical belief are concerned? I fear for the lives >of the next generation of Christians if this attitude is not given up. Yeah, me, too. I remember that article someone wrote a few months ago that talked about the future in which Christians would be persecuted and derided the way today's Christians do to others. Perhaps this is what Paul fears in a non-religious directed world. But this is nothing more than projection. He is worried that he will be treated no better by a non-religious world than the way his antecedents treated other people who didn't adhere to the religious line. This is perhaps a legitimate fear. With such a mentality of superiority so widespread, it's not unlikely that that phase of it would be duplicated in a non-religious world. The idea behind spreading more rational modes of thought is that hopefully more rational modes of morality will prevail. Paul clearly equates non-religion with anti-religion, in the sense that "anti" implies some form of suppression. It ain't necessarily so. If you work so that it doesn't become so. | -- | From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach | {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA | | Do not wait until tomorrow to tell someone you care. Tomorrow doesn't | always come. -- "So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither "No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (01/26/85)
Combining the two lists of attrocities, I think we have clear evidence of
the ubiquity of evil. I don't think that any subset thereof provides
sufficient evidence to convict any group of dispicability until the group
you are talking about is quite small. The Nazi concentration camps may
suffice to convince one of the evil of Nazism, and therefore of its leaders,
but I do not think that one can condemn (for instance) all Germans, or even
all non-jewish residents of Nazi Germany. A certain responsibility is
lacking. In like fashion, I see no reason to lay the sins of the Inquisitors
upon, say, the current pope's shoulders. Nothing he does or says can have
any effect upon the Inquisition.
I take Jesus' statement that "You shall know them by their works" in a
very narrow fashion. It seems to me that he was talking in terms of
individuals, not groups. I therefore feel quite justified in rejecting the
Inquisitors, and even Martin Luther's antisemetism (but not his good
theology), without rejecting Christianity.
Now I realize that we all have thresholds at which we refuse to tolerate
an institution which associates itself with too much evil. My complaint is
that there seems to be a double-standard here; somehow the evils which
Christians have from time to time committed are more weighty than when the
same acts are done by non-religious groups. There also seems to be a bias
against the examination of the good that the various institutions have
brought forth. It seems to me that any reasonable comparison of, for
instance, Cambodia under Pol Pot and Medieval Europe is going to eventually
tilt in favor of the Europeans, given either my standards or those which
Rich Rosen has stated.
I therefore discount any "Your evil cancels out my evil" arguments,
such as the referenced article would have us agree to.
Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe