brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (10/02/84)
[] The following is some mail I recently received which might be of interest in clearing up some misconceptions: >> Your characterization of homosexuals (remember! "homosexuals" >> is shorthand for "persons who practice homosexuality") as an >> oppressed group is laughable. What about other "oppressed groups": >> murderers, thieves, drug addicts, atheists. In some cases the >> oppression is entirely self-imposed; in others the oppression is >> directly inflicted by other people as a reaction to *objectionable >> behavior*. > >When I first read this paragraph I intended publishing an angry flame. After >thinking about it for a day, I am sending you this private appeal instead. >Please think carefully before you commit to your reaction. > >I am an atheist. I believe that any religious opinion based on the Bible is >totally, tragically, mistaken. Yet I freely recognise that you have an >absolute right to maintain your sincerely held religious views. I would >never dream of comparing you to a murderer because of those views. I agree >with the official religious position of the Soviet government, but I >consider any discrimination they practise against Christians in education, >housing, or employment to be utterly wrong. I appeal to you to as my >neighbor in a highly interconnected world to show the same respect for my >beliefs as I owe to yours. The author misunderstood my statement. Atheism is an example of an oppression which is more or less self-imposed. I am comparing atheists with murderers only to show that there are different kinds of oppression for different kinds of aberrations. Atheists certainly should not be elected to public office or appointed to judgeships as they have no basis for making good judgements but then, neither do many "Christians". In fact, many atheists, because of proper religious instruction at an early age, make better judgement than many religious fanatics. For the present distress I am satisfied with the election process. Guess what? My own father is an atheist! We get along fine! I just point out that abortion as a means of controlling population is an abomination, he disagrees and goes on to say that legislation against pornography is an abomination. Then he buys me dinner and we talk about the dog, my brothers, an upcoming fishing trip and have a swell time! -- David Brunson "... to relieve the pain and itch of swollen atheism"
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (10/05/84)
-- >> The author misunderstood my statement. Atheism is an example of >> an oppression which is more or less self-imposed. I am comparing >> atheists with murderers only to show that there are different kinds >> of oppression for different kinds of aberrations. Atheists >> certainly should not be elected to public office or appointed to >> judgeships as they have no basis for making good judgements but >> then, neither do many "Christians". In fact, many atheists, because >> of proper religious instruction at an early age, make better >> judgement than many religious fanatics. For the >> present distress I am satisfied with the election process. >> David Brunson What exactly do you worship, David, stupidity? Judges are supposed to make decisions based on law and legal precedent. I'd hope that even the most devout of them leaves his or her religious doctrine outside the courtroom. But I'll take your word for it, Dave, about religious fanatics, since you obviously have first-hand knowledge. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 04 Oct 84 [13 Vendemiaire An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
agz@pucc-k (Andrew Banta) (10/05/84)
[] Whoa! Hold on! It seems to me that we (or should I say YOU) have a serious problem with your thought process: >>> Your characterization of homosexuals (remember! "homosexuals" >>> is shorthand for "persons who practice homosexuality") as an >>> oppressed group is laughable. What about other "oppressed groups": >>> murderers, thieves, drug addicts, atheists. In some cases the >>> oppression is entirely self-imposed; in others the oppression is >>> directly inflicted by other people as a reaction to *objectionable >>> behavior*. >> >>When I first read this paragraph I intended publishing an angry flame. After >>thinking about it for a day, I am sending you this private appeal instead. >>Please think carefully before you commit to your reaction. I'm not sure what my reaction to someone printing a personal letter of mine would be, but I won't be as kind as to send you private mail only. I won't argue what "oppressed group(s)" means. But you sure as hell have some nerve grouping people together in the sense of "murderers, homosexuals, thieves, drug addicts, atheists"!!! Here, let me give you a brief rundown of what each of these groups does: Murderers: kill other human beings. Homosexuals: Prefer companionship of members of the same sex (put delicately) Thieves: Take possesions from other people, causing finacial harm. Drug addicts: Have habits which require them to use illegal substances. (Note: often leads to also becoming thieves, not always, though) Atheists: People who don't believe in the existance of a God. And just for the hell of it, I'll throw in "Christians" (quotes intended, this does not imply all people who believe in a God): Feel neccesity to condemn other people or groups with word of a "being" that these other groups or people don't beileve in. Now, excluding the final one, do I hear any complaints? The final one uses a term that is often defined another way. I will use the definition I stated hear for argument purposes. Now, note any similarities between some of these groups? Note any differences? Good! You're brighter than I thought. We take the murderers, the thieves, and the "Christians" (please remember what definition I'm using here). These three groups have very little regard for the rights of others. They feel that people are put on this earth so they can do physical and/or emotional and psychological harm. They do not regard the rights of other people. In essence, they INJURE other people. Now, we take the atheists, homosexuals, and drug addicts. These people don't neccesarily violate the rights of other human beings. There are many other groups which fit into this classification which aren't listed. They may do physical harm to themselves. They probably should be persuaded not to. In spite of this, they do not INJURE other human beings. They should be left to do as they please, without being discriminated against. Now, please, once again note, that the "Christians" I am talking about are the ones who are POSITIVE they are right. There is nothing that they can do that is wrong, and if anybody disagrees, they get lambasted with the worst the "Christian" can do. In most cases, this is being condemned to hell. Not a pleasent thing to say to someone, but reasonably harmless. If you get a group of these people together, it gets to the point where they won't associate with the person who doesn't agree with them. What I have said so far can probably be summed up as: If the person or people are going to injure other people, in one way or another, they should be punished. If they are not out to injure other people, but simply live as they want to, that should be their right. Nobody should be allowed to interfere. > Atheists certainly should not be > elected to public office or appointed to judgeships as they have no > basis for making good judgements but then, neither do many "Christians". BULLSH*T! Religious judgement is not always the right judgement. I suppose that if you feel this way, there are numerous theocracies you can move to in this world. Just because and atheist doesn't believe that there is some big omnipotent, super-natural fruitcake in the sky doesn't mean that he can't make judgements that are in the interest of other human beings or the society as a whole. It has always been my feeling that we live in a country where the individual in association with his society is the most important thing. The individual should not be able to govern what the society does and the society should not be able to govern what the individual does. > In fact, many atheists, because of proper religious instruction at an > early age, make better judgement than many religious fanatics. For the > present distress I am satisfied with the election process. I think I just went thru the point that religious judgement is not what society needs. Simply judgemnet that allows the society and individual to function happily with each other. > Guess what? My own father is an atheist! We get along fine! I just > point out that abortion as a means of controlling population is an > abomination, he disagrees and goes on to say that legislation against > pornography is an abomination. Then he buys me dinner and we talk about > the dog, my brothers, an upcoming fishing trip and have a swell time! I'm glad to hear this. It sounds like you're on the way the seeing things the way they ought to be. I won't touch on abortion or pornography now. Look at this article and see if you can figure out for yourself. I'm just glad we had this conversation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!inhp4}!pucc-k!agz Alcohol Design and Application Corp. --- Serving people over 21 years. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Who was found dead on the phone? Who was dragged down by the stone?"
hav@dual.UUCP (Helen Anne Vigneau) (10/10/84)
<*munch*> Way to go Andy! I'm glad I finally saw somebody put things into their proper perspective here. These "Christians" of whom you speak are quite likely the same ones who find some excuse to do something psychologically harmful to others under the pretext that "God is on my side. In the off-chance that I'm wrong, He'll forgive me when it's time for me to meet my maker." Helen Anne Vigneau Dual Systems Corporation P.S. I *love* your signature. I'm over 21 years . . . does that count? :-)
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (10/14/84)
[] >From: agz@pucc-k (Andrew Banta) >Subject: Re: Atheism and Tolerance >Message-ID: <397@pucc-k> >Date: Fri, 5-Oct-84 04:53:52 EDT Most of the referenced article is incomprehensible but I'll be brave and give it a try anyway. The article seems to be addressing the following exceedingly interesting remark: >>>> Your characterization of homosexuals (remember! "homosexuals" >>>> is shorthand for "persons who practice homosexuality") as an >>>> oppressed group is laughable. What about other "oppressed groups": >>>> murderers, thieves, drug addicts, atheists. In some cases the >>>> oppression is entirely self-imposed; in others the oppression is >>>> directly inflicted by other people as a reaction to *objectionable >>>> behavior*. [David Brunson, M.N.] >I won't argue what "oppressed group(s)" means. But you sure as hell have >some nerve grouping people together in the sense of "murderers, >homosexuals, thieves, drug addicts, atheists"!!! Here, let me give you a >brief rundown of what each of these groups does: >Murderers: kill other human beings. >Homosexuals: Prefer companionship of members of the same sex (put >delicately) >Thieves: Take possesions from other people, causing finacial harm. >Drug addicts: Have habits which require them to use illegal substances. >(Note: often leads to also becoming thieves, not always, though) >Atheists: People who don't believe in the existance of a God. >And just for the hell of it, I'll throw in >"Christians" (quotes intended, this does not imply all people who >believe in a God): Feel neccesity to condemn other people or groups with >word of a "being" that these other groups or people don't beileve in. ... etc ... >We take the >murderers, the thieves, and the "Christians" (please remember what >definition I'm using here). These three groups have very little regard >for the rights of others. They feel that people are put on this earth so >they can do physical and/or emotional and psychological harm. They do >not regard the rights of other people. In essence, they INJURE other >people. ... and so on ... This looks similar to some points that have already been made (Alan Driscoll's two types of "wrongness"). An interesting twist is the "physical and/or emotional and psychological harm". Now it should be clear to everyone that I'm not advocating physical harm toward atheists, homosexuals, and other non-physically harmful individuals, but what exactly do you mean by "emotional and psychological harm"? Do you mean antagonistic articles which viciously and skillfully ridicule the vile habits of those who pervert their humanity? Do you mean refusing to associate with sinners? Should people who write brilliant, antagonistic, "emotionally harmful" articles or who fire homosexuals be lumped in the same category with murderers and thieves? What EXACTLY are you saying? >Now, please, once again note, that the "Christians" I am talking about >are the ones who are POSITIVE they are right. There is nothing that they >can do that is wrong, and if anybody disagrees, they get lambasted with >the worst the "Christian" can do. In most cases, this is being condemned >to hell. Not a pleasent thing to say to someone, but reasonably >harmless. If you get a group of these people together, it gets to the >point where they won't associate with the person who doesn't agree with >them. So? What's the problem? >What I have said so far can probably be summed up as: If the person or >people are going to injure other people, in one way or another, they >should be punished. If they are not out to injure other people, but >simply live as they want to, that should be their right. Nobody should >be allowed to interfere. I take it from your previous statement that you include "emotional and psychological harm" in your definition of injury to other people. Let's get to specifics. In the "Gay Rights" discussion I am suggesting that it is valid to fire homosexuals because they are homosexuals. Is this injury? Is it no less injury to punish people for refusing to associate with homosexuals? >It has always been my feeling >that we live in a country where the individual in association with his >society is the most important thing. The individual should not be able >to govern what the society does and the society should not be able to >govern what the individual does. Can somebody translate this for me? Or is nothing being said? >> Guess what? My own father is an atheist! We get along fine! I just >> point out that abortion as a means of controlling population is an >> abomination, he disagrees and goes on to say that legislation against >> pornography is an abomination. Then he buys me dinner and we talk about >> the dog, my brothers, an upcoming fishing trip and have a swell time! > >I'm glad to hear this. It sounds like you're on the way the seeing >things the way they ought to be. I won't touch on abortion or >pornography now. Look at this article and see if you can figure out for >yourself. I'm just glad we had this conversation. Hunh?? >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!inhp4}!pucc-k!agz >Alcohol Design and Application Corp. --- Serving people over 21 years. >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oh!! So THAT'S the problem! -- David Brunson, M.N.
acu@stat-l (Shoe) (10/17/84)
> From: brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) > Now it should be clear to everyone that I'm not advocating physical > harm toward atheists, homosexuals, and other non-physically harmful > individuals, but what exactly do you mean by "emotional and > psychological harm"? Do you mean antagonistic articles which viciously > and skillfully ridicule the vile habits of those who pervert their > humanity? Do you mean refusing to associate with sinners? Should > people who write brilliant, antagonistic, "emotionally harmful" > articles or who fire homosexuals be lumped in the same category with > murderers and thieves? At the very least, you have nothing to worry about on the "skillfully" and "brilliant" counts.... -- Mark Shoemaker /dev/shoe ...!pur-ee!pucc-k:acu mas@purdue The way to do is to be. -- Lao Tzu