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