Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!houxz!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Humanism and the myth of Neutrality
Message-ID: <708@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Jun-84 12:09:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.708
Posted: Mon Jun  4 12:09:22 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Jun-84 01:26:46 EDT
References: <1161@qubix.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 157

I know I said I would avoid taking on Mr. Bickford's ranting again, but ...

Larry mentions a case (apparently) where parents chose to let a severely
retarded child with a number of physical problems die rather than have
operations performed to extend his life.  His presentation is notoriously
one-sided (and leaves a number of points unclear), concluding with
"condemning him to an early and painful death" (which could just as
easily have been called "condemning him to a long and painful life" had the
operations been performed).  Since Larry left so much unclear in this
and the following example (it's not clear whether the girl wanted to
have an abortion or not from the text Larry wrote) that it is impossible
to make any judgments.  Yet Larry seems to point out that his answers are
obviously arrived at, though I'm not quite sure how.  (What about those
religions that forbid any medical intervention?)  The point is:  what's
the point?  Why is this a 'religionist'/'humanist' question (except
in Larry's eyes)?

> 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.

Larry still seems to be (and probably will continue to be) under the impression
that non-religion means "making up your own rules as you go along".  Which is
contrary to the notion of people formulating rules for a society on a rational
level (as opposed to simply doing things because it says so in a book that
*some* people believe is an ultimate authority).  The difference between
the non-religion ideal and the religion ideal is that the former uses
rational thinking to formulate agreed-upon rules for a society, while the
latter employs rote obedience to the words in a book.  About this whole
business of situational ethics:  would anyone like to show me some
non-situational ethics?

	Man:  Excuse me, God, I have a question?  You say that it is
		wrong to kill?

	God:  Yes, thou shalt not kill.

	Man:  But this guy is coming at me with a knife.  Can I kill him
		to prevent him from killing me?

	God:  Uhhh, [FLIP, FLIP, FLIP] ... yes, that's OK.

	Man:  Well, he *is* coming after me for having killed his entire
		family.

	God:  Oh!  Well, then he has a right to kill you, an eye for an eye
		and all that...

	Man:  But it was an accident!  Their car went out of control and
		I couldn't stop my car in time to avoid crushing them.

	God:  Oh, well, then he shouldn't be killing you for that.   Well...
		Yes, *he* should definitely be killed for trying to kill you.

	Man:  But it's not his fault.  He went insane years ago from
		accidentally ingesting this chemical, and he'd been in
		treatment for it but he couldn't afford it any more because
		he lost his job, and now he's relapsing and...

	God:  Hmm, where'd that page on absolute good and evil go? [FLIP, FLIP]
		Oh, OK, well he should get some more of that treatment again,
		but if he does kill you he'll have to be killed, too, because
		killing is wrong.

	Man:  Thank you, God.  It must be really hard work straightening out
		all this sort of nonsense.

	God:  It wasn't *my* idea!  Larry Bickford told me I had to do it,
		and who was I to argue with him?

> 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. But neutrality is a
> myth, and a very devastating one.

There's no need to *try* to have many of us believe that it is possible to
be without religion; we have already discovered this possibility.  This
must be what Larry meant in his definition of freedom, where freedom meant
being free to do what was right.  Obviously once Larry's candidates get
elected, *then* the US government would have the authority of god.  Then we
will all have "freedom to worship", but not "freedom NOT to worship".
What is this "neutrality" you refer to that is impossible to achieve?

> > 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.

As I've already mentioned, humanism has rules just like any other
societal construct.  The difference is, again, that the rules are logically
determined and thought out rather than derived from a book for which no one can
offer evidence of its divine origins and authority.

> > [Theist]: "Where's the deity?" There isn't one.
> The myth of neutrality again.

Huh?  Again this neutrality.  What does it mean?  One cannot hope to
believe in the wrong god or no god, or to believe that it doesn't matter?
One *must* believe in the "right way" and there are no other options?
Could someone clarify?  Does Larry mean that no one can hope to offer
a neutral, rational position/judgment in a situation, that only god can
offer final judgment?  It's not the myth of neutrality, it's the myth of
belief without substance, without evidence, without reason.

> For Daryel Akerlind, the key historic evidences you need are two:
> fulfilled prophecy and the Resurrection. Neither Mohammed nor Moon
> qualifies on either point. (See Romans 1:4 and Luke 24:27,44,46)

Again, anyone can take a prophecy from eons ago and interpret that current
events are a fulfillment of that prophecy.  The Resurrection?  Oh, yeah, Larry
was there, he saw it all, and he performed scientific tests to make sure it
wasn't all legerdemain.

> Lest I leave Rich Rosen out, his latest articles (at qubix, anyway) added
> nothing new to the above save one, regarding making George Labelle into
> a Messiah: I should expect to see George publicly executed, then find
> 500 people willing to be thrown to the lions rather than renounce belief
> that they saw George alive after he was dead. I should also expect to
> see some miracles being performed to authenticate the message (my cobra
> would like to taste your arm). I should also expect to find over 300
> specific predictions about George's life and death that had been made at
> least 500 years earlier (and compiled in a specific book at *that* time)
> should be exactly fulfilled. What a cure for insomnia.

The Book of Ubizmo clearly says:  "And a man named George will be born.  And
he will live.  And eventually he will die.  And, lo, many people will see this
as a sign that this very prophecy I am writing right now has been fulfilled.
And there will be much rejoicing, and sales of George Labelle t-shirts and
paperback books and video games will be humungous in my sight.  And seven
people who knew George will see him again after he has died, but they will not
mention that it was a photograph or a videotape, or that they had partaken of
chemicals, or that they were just playing a joke on everyone.  And many who
choose to believe this all to be a sign of great things, will believe in
George.  And they will be laughed at, scorned, and have tomatoes thrown at
them, and many will die.  But one tomato will not reach its target, and will
become a splotch on the ground.  And this will be called the Miracle of the
Red Fruit for all to see.  And many will speak to others of George's horrible
death at the hands of the unbelievers, failing to mention that he slipped on
a bar of soap in the shower.  And a great horned beast named Edgar who ..."
Didn't I already mention about interpreting "prophecies" the way YOU want to?
The Book of Ubizmo is much clearer, and specifically names names (George)
and events (slipping in the shower).  No room for error, here....

> Now the good news: I'll be too busy with work next week to post
> anything major, and on vacation the following week. So if you think I'm
> ignoring you - you're probably right. :-)

Oh, come on, Larry's been ignoring everything we've said from the very
beginning!  Why should we expect anything different? :-()
-- 
"Submitted for your approval..."		  Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr