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