giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles) (03/20/84)
This jumps back a bit, but then again I 've been away for a while...... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The thing that really annoys me concerning evangelists is the way they come across with "Your opinions/beliefs/morals do not matter." The best example is the bumper sticker "God said it/That settles it" It just so happens that I have given a great deal of thought to the questions raised by any religion, and have my own (very strong) set of morals even though I no longer belong to a religion. So who are they to tell me that a 2000+ year old document which has been edited many times over for purely political purposes should have greater sway in my life than the great deal of time I've spent thinking about these problems? Especially on matters which were not around at the time those clerics wrote them? Such as: abortion, evolution, nuclear power, nuclear weapons,.... While the actions of a religion's adherents should not (and do not) affect my opinion of that religion's beliefs, there comes a point when one must view the religion as the sum of its ideals and its followers, and Christianity does not fare very well. Now, I do happen to know several people who are strongly religious and I feel confortable with them, even when discussing religion. BUT THEY ALWAYS RESPECT MY BELIEFS AS I RESPECT THEIRS. The acid test I use, however, is if we would react similarly in a given situation, why worry over trivial matters such as religion? (I better duck after that!) As long as we all agree it's generally not very nice to go around shooting people, but still occasionally necessary,* most other things are minor... In public follow the most conservative major group... In private, its ONLY your business... ave discordia going bump in the night ... bruce giles decvax!ucf-cs!giles university of central florida giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay orlando, florida 32816 * My rule, for those interested, is: Lethal force is morally justified against sentients to: (1): Protect the life of a child (2): Protect the life of your family (excluding children) (3): Protect your own life (4): Protect another person These were listed in priority: hence if required to choose between saving a myself or a child I would save the child. The other condition is that a reasonable threat of lethal force must have been shown -- It is acceptable to kill someone who is aiming a gun at a person, but not someone who is aiming a slingshot. Finally, a sentient is anything which understands the connection between their actions and the consequence another will suffer. Hence computers/ robots may fall under the above rule in a few years.