labelle@hplabsc.UUCP (WB6YZZ) (11/07/83)
1) Feeding the stomachs of all the starving people in the world dosn't solve the problem- only perpetuates it. What the world needs now is not love! It needs education. Then people can solve their own problems. They had all those babys because they didn't know any better! 2) When I said religion was the indirect cause of the masses, my thoughts were that religion, in most countries, (or in general?) hinders the advan- cement of the populace by providing a mental crutch ( the I don't have to change syndrome- God will take care of me) or by the outright contradiction of scientific fact. Faith by definition discourages rational thought which results in atrophied minds!
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (11/09/83)
"Faith by definition discourages rational thought which results in atrophied minds!" Boy, do I have a bone to pick with this one! Have you ever *BEEN* to a Theology Library? Have you ever read anything by Thomas Aquinas? or Soren Kierkegaard? or... enough, you haven't, or you couldn't make such dogmatic statements. This deos not mean that some people use there religions to avoid rational thought, or indeed that there do not exist religions that discorage rational thought. However, i know lots of people who have no religion and who still manage to do their best to avoid thinking rationally at all, so this is hardly a fair criticism of religions. A religion is a very useful thing to have if one does not want to think, but if you take away the religion it does not follow that the person will start thinking. Religions are intensely interesting things, so if you could not be bothered to thinking about your religion I doubt that you will ever bother thinking about *anything*. But how much thinking does such dogmatic mud-slinging as you use show? These days it is fashionable to blame religions for everything. India has a lot of problems as a nation, but making it a nation of atheists is not likely to help any of them. And education does not imply atheism -- or don't you know any educated religious people? Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
keesan@bbncca.ARPA (Morris Keesan) (11/10/83)
-------------------------------- >>>> "Faith by definition discourages rational thought which results >>>> in atrophied minds!" >> >> flame flame flame Theology flame flame dogmatic flame flame religions >> flame flame religions flame flame religion flame flame dogmatic mud-slinging >> flame flame religions flame flame. >> >>Laura Creighton I think there is a problem in communication here, based on use of differing definitions of terms. Laura Creighton reads a statement about faith, and proceeds to issue a vehement defense of religion, without once referring to faith, which was the original issue in question. At this point, I consulted Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, and I think the result is worth sharing, slightly excerpted: faith: 1 a: allegiance to duty or person : LOYALTY . . . 2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust 3: something that is believed esp. with strong conviction; esp: a system of religious beliefs It is clear to me that the definition referred to in the original statement above is Webster's 2 b (1), and I think that at least the first part of the statement becomes non-controversial with the proper substitution ("Firm belief . . . [with] no proof discourages rational thought . . ."), although the conclusion is a bit strong. I will admit that this is the definition which springs immediately to my mind, and so I found the statement fairly self-evident therefore. Laura's response, however, indicates that her definition of faith is closer to Webster's 2 a or 3, and I suspect most people would not claim that belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion in and of itself discourages rational thought -- certainly not I, whose ancestors engaged in centuries of Talmudic hair-splitting. However, it would seem that these uses of the word "faith" do stem from the "belief without proof" usage, and it is true that there are and have been religions which encourage this sort of faith, for whatever reasons. There is, for example, the theory that the Pope's objections to Galileo were based less on the substance of Galileo's beliefs than on the fact that his writings in defense of them were too eloquent, and encouraged the use of observation and reason instead of unreasoning faith. Morris M. Keesan decvax!bbncca!keesan
bprice@bmcg.UUCP (11/16/83)
This is not in opposition to the original posting--when I read it, I was struck by one phrase that appeared. My response is directed to each person, individually, not to labelle alone. It is a challenge--read it and ponder. >From sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabsc!labelle > 1) Feeding the stomachs of all the starving people in the world dosn't solve > the problem- only perpetuates it. What the world needs now is not love! It > needs education. Then people can solve their own problems. They had all > those babys because they didn't know any better! Of course it is love that they need--love that causes them to get themselves educated, love that causes each of them to be responsible adults, supporting themselves rather than having kids to either put to work or to collect government subsidies for. It is not love you show when you give someone a fish: love is when you teach him how to fish, and thus feed himself. When you feed him, it is not out of love, it is out of your own greediness and guilt. When you are "kind" to him by bailing him out of his own troubles, you are not showing love--you are showing him contempt and hatred. You are showing him how "good" you are, and by contrast, how "bad" he is. You are showing him that you want to enslave him to your purpose, trying to buy his love, respect, or admiration: "See how wonderful I am for feeding you this meal that you can't provide for yourself!" On the other hand, when you demand of him that he feed himself--that he change whatever he must change to make his life better--you are showing him love. This "tough love" does not make you feel better than he is--it is hard work, without immediate gratification. The positive that you get from it is the knowledge that you cared enough to help, rather than destroy. You are telling him that he can, because he must; you are telling him that he is worthwhile, worthy of respect for himself. What the world needs, what the 'starving people' need, is love of the toughest kind. What the world needs is people who are willing to give that kind of love. We have enough of the "dogooders" who will only do enough to satisfy their own little guilt feelings, but won't do enough to do good instead of evil. We need people--many people--like Reagan, who care enough to do what is right and what works, rather than the people like Tip O'Neil who will spend all of your money to destroy the people in need. Do you care enough to help, out of love? Or do you just want some quick gratification out of the misery of others? If you really care, get to work-- find some way to really help. Elect some congressmen who will support RR's tough-love policies. Learn all you can about the realities of life, to displace the gratification-responses you have been taught in your church, schools, newspapers and (especially) television. Learn what life and love really are all about. Get tough with yourself--tough enough to reject the temptation of the "quick fix" and the guilt-easing charities, especially the government life-destroyers of the "public" schools and the welfare schemes. Find other ways that you can show yourself that you care. Join the BSA or GSUSA and teach some kids about life and love. There are plenty of opportunities to learn and use "tough love", if you care enough to do it. If you don't, at least get off my back, RR's back, and the backs of the rest of us who don't want to enslave the poor, but want to liberate them from their (self-imposed) bondage. Stop demanding that we pay for your "welfare" enslavement and other government-sponsored oppression. If you don't care enough to get involved, at least, damn it, get out of the way. -- --Bill Price uucp: {decvax!ucbvax philabs}!sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice arpa:? sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice@nosc
wall@ucbvax.UUCP (11/20/83)
I find it a bit hard to accept the statement that the starving people of the world "don't know any better" when they continue to have more and more babies. If it's a matter of educating theses people, I have to ask why this hasn't been done yet. Why hasn't a world power like the US taken the initiative and coordinate such educational programs so that these people can start to solve their own problems? Could it be that it really is not to the advantage of the US to initiate such a program since educated people are more apt to demand a bigger share of the world's wealth? Since much of the West's wealth comes at the expense of third world countries, the education of these people might be cut the West's own throat. Also, it is worth looking at *why* these people continue to have families of 6-12 when they have such a hard time feeding all those mouths. It must be kept in mind that for many of these people large families are an economic resource (the more people available for work, the better chance the family has of improving their standard of living). Of course, it is pretty clear that these families *prefer* sons to daughters (no offense to the women out there) because sons are able to perform jobs that bring more income to the family. Now this is not meant to be a general theory for the entire world, but in several underdeveloped countries this is the rational used at the family level to justify having large families. Simply educating these people that it is to their advantage to use birth control and avoid large families is not going to solve the problem of overpopulation/hunger; if people see large families as assets, they are sure to continue to have large families. If any program is ever going to be successful, it must provide an environment (both economic and social) in which these it *is* to these people's advantage to have small families. Until then, no relief/education program is going to *really* solve the problem. As people living in the richest nation in the world, we cannot assume that the people of the Third World think just like us, because they live under vastly different conditions, which leads to a different rational thought process. Only when we are able to understand these differences will we be able to start to help solve the problems facing these people. Unfortunately, the leaders of our country don't seem to really want to learn these differences, and work with these differences, but rather they seek to spread Americanism throughout the world as the Divine Word. Of course, it takes a fairly complex mind to understand these things, something that our current president *certainly* doesn't have. Just some thoughts on the world we live in. (a crazy one no doubt) Steve Wall wall@ucbarpa ucbarpa!wall
wombat@uicsl.UUCP (11/20/83)
#R:hplabsc:-146700:uicsl:5400041:000:780 uicsl!wombat Nov 19 16:24:00 1983 You're on the right track, but bringing two twits like Reagan and O'Neil into your argument doesn't help a bit. Politicians are out for themselves, and not out of 'tough love' for the world either. If you want to help, and don't have the time to go out and educate all the poor, consider Save the Children, an international organization that goes out and teaches people how to build sewers and schools and how to better their lives and how to sell/trade things produced in their villages. But don't tell everybody to get off Reagan's back, because too many people don't consider him competent. And don't assume that people who don't like Reagan automatically support O'Neil. I wouldn't shed a tear if either one of them dropped dead. Wombat ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!wombat
jsol@bbncca.ARPA (Jon Solomon ) (11/23/83)
It's not in the interest of the US Government educate the masses, especially those outside of the US. It's much easier to pull the wool over uneducated eyes like so many of our politicians have done than it is to educate everybody and then have to justify everything to everyone. I'm speaking on a fairly extreme point of view. Please, no flames directed at me for my opinion, thanks. -- Cheers, [--JSol--] ARPANET: JSOL@USC-ECLC (preferred) or JSOL@BBNCCA (@BBN-UNIX if you can't find BBNCCA) MILNET: JSOL@USC-ECLB (preferred) or JSOL@BNL USENET: ...decvax!bbncca!jsol