Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cbscd5.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscd5!pmd From: pmd@cbscd5.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion Subject: Re: The Bible and the Constitution Message-ID: <255@cbscd5.UUCP> Date: Fri, 8-Jul-83 13:50:51 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscd5.255 Posted: Fri Jul 8 13:50:51 1983 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Jul-83 18:43:03 EDT References: <248@cbscd5.UUCP>, <1663@rabbit.UUCP> Organization: Bell Labs, Columbus Lines: 60 From: jj@rabbit.UUCP Paul Dubuc's comments concerning religion, the Bible, and the Constitution of the United States demonstrate (whether or not he belongs/subscribes to the MM ) some of the most criminal uses of sophistry put forth by the so called "moral" majority. Is this any way to discredit my argument? What did you find in what I said that was actually false? I could classify the above statement as a perfect example of the tactics (whether or not you have read/subscribed to the Humanist Manifestos I & II) used by the humanist elite to categorically discredit the views of anyone who espouses a biblical world view. But what would that prove? I am willing to give credit to anyone who espouses the truth regardless of their religious or political beliefs. It's not good reasoning to discredit the source or propounders of and argument without considering the argument itself. I tried to support my views with references to historical materials. But all you do is *label* it as rhetoric. His statements equating atheism with Stalin rank right up there with Adolf Hitler's equating of inferiority with Judaism. His use of rhetoric, comparing unrelated philosophies to the deliberate detriment of those he disagrees with, could also be taken straight from Hitler, or from Stalin, for that matter. I'm glad that the man studies history; I rather wish that he'd learned more than rhetoric from it. I try not to equate any religion or belief system with a particular person. I used Stalin as an example to show that mass murder is not hypocritical to atheistic belief. Who considers Stalin to be a hypocrite? Atheists like to point to things like the Spanish Inquisition to degrade Christianity. I think that in doing so they are only pointing out the hypocrisy of certain "Christians". I did not mean to imply in my article that all atheists would be mass murders given the chance. What bothers me is the way many atheists are trying to give atheism the credit for the establishment of a relatively good form of government by asserting that Christian Theism has very little to do with the principles on which our government was founded. The twisting of the "wall of separation principle" is a good example. Thomas Jefferson is portrayed by them as being hostile to Christian Theism when, in fact, he was not. I don't see any way around the idea that our government was formed on Judeo-Christian principles. To set up a theocracy would have been a mistake, but I think there is plenty of evidence that the Founding Fathers did accept biblical principals as a basis for government. Is this embarrassing to atheists? As for countries that operate on atheistic principals, there are plenty of present day examples. But who expounds on their virtues? Well if you think all of this is just more rhetoric--fine. You can ignore it. I definitely do NOT subscribe to many of the Moral Majority's views. But I don't swallow the news media's presentation of it as being totally realistic either. They have done a good job of totally discrediting the organization it the eyes of the public, so that, anything they espouse is categorically rejected. So all they need to do to show something to be "stupid" or "dangerous" or "extreme right wing" is to show that the Moral Majority supports it. I think you have used the same tactic here. I hope I can devote much less time in the future to answering responses like this. Paul Dubuc