sleat@aat.UUCP (11/04/84)
(Someone or something seems to have zapped the original article during the period I was letting this little ditty cool off. Look back and you should be able to figure out what it's a reply to. By the way, could someone send me a copy of the original? It's a classic.) >The values of most respondents say that intolerance of those who >commit sexual sins is a great evil. No, Mr. Brunson, you seem to be missing a very fundamental point. It is not that your opponents say that intolerance of those who "commit sins" is a great "evil". It is simply that they are not playing your game. You are still standing in front of the big tree with your eyes closed, counting to 100, while all the other boys and girls have gone home to supper. You are so caught up in your smug little game of "Sinners-n- Saints" that you fail to realize that it is merely your own personal hallucination. (How else to describe mumbling to invisible creatures, babbling about perforated spooks, and the suchlike?) Let us hark back to one of your earlier scenarios: Suppose you came to me for a job. You seemed well qualified, but during the course of our interview it bacame obvious to me that you had these bizzare religious inclinations. Perhaps it was because you wore some medallion, or because of some phrase you let slip in the course of conversation. No matter. Now, of course I would not hire you. Qualifications or no, one cannot afford to take chances with this sort of pernicious dementia. Non- descrimination clauses and tolerance are all well and good, but surely one must draw the line somewhere. This sort of mental instability could actually endanger the lives of the other employees. Perhaps you say that this is just as well, that you would not want to work for someone who would not hire you on these grounds. Well, suppose that you already had a comfortable, rewarding job (as perhaps you do). Now suppose that one day I became your superior. Surely it would be my obligation to see to it that you did not remain in the organization, so as to ensure that those operations under my control were not corrupted by such undesireable elements. (The disturbing effect of religious fanatics on any organization is, of course, well known.) Now suppose that you have been forced out of your job by such a process. You have packed up (do you have a family, Mr. Brunson?) and moved on to greener pastures. You have found a new job, and an ideal house for sale. Let me sell you my house, Mr. Brunson. Oh, you want to know if there's a church nearby. Why would that be? I see. You know, it's quite a coincidence, but I've just had a better offer on the house, and I'm afraid that I've already accepted it. You know, Mr. Brunson, some of the neighbors and I were talking jes today, and we jes don't think you'd be happy here in this neighborhood. Really, this ain't the sort of town you're lookin fer anyhow. Mebbe it would be all fer the best if you and your family jes moved on. It's a shame about the job, though. That shur sounded swell. (Well, after all, we're jes protectin decent folk from real undesireable sorts. Everybody knows these things run in families, y'know, even though nobody knows fer shur whether it's in the blood or in the upbringin. Anyhow, if I sold you my house, you'd probably settle right in to breed a bunch more lunatics.) ---------------- It's curious, Mr. Brunson, that you started out by defending your right to refuse to hire someone. Why didn't you start out by defending someone else's right to refuse to hire you? I would be interested to hear you argue for my right to refuse to sell you my house because of your religious hysteria. It's really in your best interest, after all. I know that it's not really solving your problems, but at least I'm not adding to them by letting you fall into the complacent perception that there's nothing wrong with you. Besides, how else can you be made to see the error of your ways? Perhaps something a little more physical? ---------------- The world must be a ghastly place, seen through the demented eyes of a pathetic creature hypnotized by the mirror image of his own rightousness. Michael Sleator Ann Arbor Terminals {aatpdx, cbosgd, cosivax, mb2c, psu-cs, uofm-cv}!aat!sleat What the hell, everyone should post a real flame every couple of years or so. [Any resemblance between the above views and those of my employer, my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental. Any resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic. The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold them is left as an exercise for the reader. The question of the existence of the reader is left as an exercise for the second god coefficient. (A discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism is byond the scope of this article.)]