Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!houxz!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!seismo!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Humanism and the myth of Neutrality Message-ID: <533@opus.UUCP> Date: Wed, 6-Jun-84 01:37:42 EDT Article-I.D.: opus.533 Posted: Wed Jun 6 01:37:42 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 7-Jun-84 19:02:55 EDT References: <1161@qubix.UUCP> Organization: NBI, Boulder Lines: 58 We're back with Larry Bickford again: >Bob Lied: >> The fundamental rule of humanism is the Golden Rule. >But it only applies to humanists. Consider: in 1980, the California >Supreme Court (Bird-brain, et al.)... And of course, Larry's love of his brethren applies only to the few who share his view of the world... Larry goes on to cite one court case with some difficult questions - of course, he states only one side of it in order to make the hard questions look easy. And of course he makes the "humanists" (might as well have said "disciples of Satan") his whipping- boys, but without making any connection between the court case and humanism. >More Bob Lied: >> We do not need the heavy baggage of absolute good and evil ... >No, you want the ability to change the rules whenever you feel like it. >Everyone has absolutes; you just don't want to let yours be known. And of course ol' holier-than-thou Larry is free to twist anything you say. Larry has his OWN sense of situational ethics - he is not bound by reason, fairness/justice, tolerance, or anything else, when criticizing a view he doesn't like. >Dick Dunn (for the next four): >> How does one reconcile "Exterminate the worship of other gods" with >> the US doctrine of freedom of religion? >I didn't know that US doctrine had the authority of God:-). "Freedom >*of* religion" is quite the appropriate term - freedom *to* worship. >This is not the same as freedom *from* worship, which tries to have us >believe that it is possible to be without religion... Larry seems to be asserting that he can distinguish between a religious belief system and a belief system from which religion is absent. This is a logical fallacy at heart; you just can't draw the line. (For any set of criteria you may establish to distinguish religion from not-religion, I can probably devise a doctrine which sits squarely on the fence.) But more basically, Larry sidestepped the real question - a stated part of his doctrine is to "Exterminate the worship of other gods." He didn't bother to address that point, because he can't without telling most of you - not only atheist but Jew, Muslim, and even most Christians - that he has a holy mission to ram his beliefs down your (our) throats. >> I have seen misinterpretations of situation ethics used as an excuse >> for people to do whatever they want - I think that may be what bothers >> Bob [Brown], and it bothers me too; I don't buy it a bit. >What bothers me more is that, in the humanist system, there is no way >to define or control the abuses. Rich Rosen said it pretty well; Larry consistently ignores any knowledge of humanism. He substitutes his own unfounded ideas; then, having set up the straw man, he burns it down. For the response to the rest of Larry's diatribe, see Rich Rosen's response. I'm glad Rich summoned the energy to comment on it. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.