pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/14/85)
}>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 don't you read my article again. I took pains to make the point that such associations are misguided from BOTH sides. At least I can see that from my own religious standpoint. You and others seem to be blind to it from your own nonreligious one. If my description of Salem as "isolated" was arbitrary your last sentence is more so ... to the point of being ridiculous. So, the atocities of atheists are to be blamed on the religious views held by their predicessors in power? Is that what your are saying? }>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 repeat: The whole point of my article was to say that the implications you accuse me of making are misguided. I can't believe you missed that. I haven't seen the evidence you're talking about. }>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. Who? I made the point that before the reformation most people were biblically illiterate. The Church strongly resisted any efforts to translate the Bible into common language. If the Bible justified the Church's actions, what did they have to fear? I maintain that the Church was that authority during the Inquisition, not the Bible. There's a difference. Who still thinks that the teaching of Christ justifies the Inquisition? Care to back up your assertions? }>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.) Keep guessing. It seems to serve your purpose. I suppose you would claim that the Nazis only persecuted the Jews in their zeal to follow Luther's teaching (sola scriptura)? Good Bible believing Christians all those Nazis were, right. }>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"? Physically isolated, without much communication with the outside. That's how. }>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. Yet you still agree that the atrocities like the Inquisition are inherent in the religious beliefs (and not their political position) of their perpetrators? }>Those in power are able to twist the Bible to support self-serving ends and }>stifel corrective input. } }This is happening as we speak. Probably true. The fact remains that it is *twisting*. }>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. Your complete focus is on the negative. I am arguing for a balanced view. Does anyone study the social effect of the revivals of John Wesley in Great Briton ... or the part Charles Finney played in getting slavery abolished in the U.S.? No. The positive contributions of religious people don't make intersting history, especially in a public education system that has been dominated by secularist ideals. Anyway, where is the support for this statement? In what way did the reformation perpetuate this attitude? The point here is that if you insist on associating the atrocities of the religious as an inherent property of their religion then, to be consistent, you must also associate the atrocities (being done as we speak ... and they haven't given up killing for maiming either) of the nonreligious with their lack of religious belief. What I am saying (and I think you must know it full well) is either give up the implications of religion being inherently evil or accept the same (much greater) implications for nonreligion. Also, I can't help but sense your tacit support for the idea that my religious beliefs justify maiming people who don't share them. }> 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. "the way today's Christians do to others" -- implying all Christians. It is frequency and matter-of-factness of with which these generalizations are made that bothers me. }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. I don't see any nonreligious people working "so it doesn't become so"? If there are, my comments were not addressed to them. If you remember, it is the inferrence (from historical example) that there is nothing good whatever about religion that prompted my remarks. You and Rich Rosen have fallen in to defend that perspective, as I see it. I can't believe that your attitudes express any tolerance for religious belief or appreciation of the many many positive contributions of religiously motivated people. Apparently your view of history conveniently excludes such a perspective. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd