Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcrdcf.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!lwall From: lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: War and Death Message-ID: <1371@sdcrdcf.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Oct-84 13:54:22 EDT Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.1371 Posted: Tue Oct 9 13:54:22 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Oct-84 07:08:39 EDT References: <856@ihuxp.UUCP> <272@umcp-cs.UUCP> Reply-To: lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall) Organization: System Development Corp. R+D, Santa Monica Lines: 29 Summary: >> Anyone want to agree with me that the psychological prop that we call >> religion has been the biggest cause of war in history? And it just >> might be the biggest cause of death in total except for old age? > >I'll agree that "religion" has been used as a psychological prop for those >who want war; I won't agree for a minute that it is a cause of war. A difficulty we're having here is the definition of religion. I much prefer this one: This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of God: to visit widows and orphans in their distress, and to keep one's self unstained by the world. [1] Now, unless you want to go and make some wisecrack about generating more widows and orphans, which war is rather good at, I don't think that you can claim that much of "religion" has much of religion in it. If a trout stops eating May Flies because there are too many fake ones floating overhead, he or she will starve. If I stop helping people and keeping my attitudes in line just because someone claims that such activity causes war, I would be starving in a deeper sense. And if I have to use the psychological prop of calling other people's world views "psychological props", that would be rather funny, in a funny sort of way. Was that enough of a flame to qualify? Larry Wall {allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall