Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usfbobo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!usfbobo!brunson From: brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) Newsgroups: net.motss,net.religion Subject: Re: Atheism and Tolerance Message-ID: <203@usfbobo.UUCP> Date: Sun, 14-Oct-84 01:45:19 EDT Article-I.D.: usfbobo.203 Posted: Sun Oct 14 01:45:19 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 15-Oct-84 02:03:46 EDT References: <191@usfbobo.UUCP>, <397@pucc-k> Organization: Univ. of South Florida, Tampa Lines: 112 [] >From: agz@pucc-k (Andrew Banta) >Subject: Re: Atheism and Tolerance >Message-ID: <397@pucc-k> >Date: Fri, 5-Oct-84 04:53:52 EDT Most of the referenced article is incomprehensible but I'll be brave and give it a try anyway. The article seems to be addressing the following exceedingly interesting remark: >>>> Your characterization of homosexuals (remember! "homosexuals" >>>> is shorthand for "persons who practice homosexuality") as an >>>> oppressed group is laughable. What about other "oppressed groups": >>>> murderers, thieves, drug addicts, atheists. In some cases the >>>> oppression is entirely self-imposed; in others the oppression is >>>> directly inflicted by other people as a reaction to *objectionable >>>> behavior*. [David Brunson, M.N.] >I won't argue what "oppressed group(s)" means. But you sure as hell have >some nerve grouping people together in the sense of "murderers, >homosexuals, thieves, drug addicts, atheists"!!! Here, let me give you a >brief rundown of what each of these groups does: >Murderers: kill other human beings. >Homosexuals: Prefer companionship of members of the same sex (put >delicately) >Thieves: Take possesions from other people, causing finacial harm. >Drug addicts: Have habits which require them to use illegal substances. >(Note: often leads to also becoming thieves, not always, though) >Atheists: People who don't believe in the existance of a God. >And just for the hell of it, I'll throw in >"Christians" (quotes intended, this does not imply all people who >believe in a God): Feel neccesity to condemn other people or groups with >word of a "being" that these other groups or people don't beileve in. ... etc ... >We take the >murderers, the thieves, and the "Christians" (please remember what >definition I'm using here). These three groups have very little regard >for the rights of others. They feel that people are put on this earth so >they can do physical and/or emotional and psychological harm. They do >not regard the rights of other people. In essence, they INJURE other >people. ... and so on ... This looks similar to some points that have already been made (Alan Driscoll's two types of "wrongness"). An interesting twist is the "physical and/or emotional and psychological harm". Now it should be clear to everyone that I'm not advocating physical harm toward atheists, homosexuals, and other non-physically harmful individuals, but what exactly do you mean by "emotional and psychological harm"? Do you mean antagonistic articles which viciously and skillfully ridicule the vile habits of those who pervert their humanity? Do you mean refusing to associate with sinners? Should people who write brilliant, antagonistic, "emotionally harmful" articles or who fire homosexuals be lumped in the same category with murderers and thieves? What EXACTLY are you saying? >Now, please, once again note, that the "Christians" I am talking about >are the ones who are POSITIVE they are right. There is nothing that they >can do that is wrong, and if anybody disagrees, they get lambasted with >the worst the "Christian" can do. In most cases, this is being condemned >to hell. Not a pleasent thing to say to someone, but reasonably >harmless. If you get a group of these people together, it gets to the >point where they won't associate with the person who doesn't agree with >them. So? What's the problem? >What I have said so far can probably be summed up as: If the person or >people are going to injure other people, in one way or another, they >should be punished. If they are not out to injure other people, but >simply live as they want to, that should be their right. Nobody should >be allowed to interfere. I take it from your previous statement that you include "emotional and psychological harm" in your definition of injury to other people. Let's get to specifics. In the "Gay Rights" discussion I am suggesting that it is valid to fire homosexuals because they are homosexuals. Is this injury? Is it no less injury to punish people for refusing to associate with homosexuals? >It has always been my feeling >that we live in a country where the individual in association with his >society is the most important thing. The individual should not be able >to govern what the society does and the society should not be able to >govern what the individual does. Can somebody translate this for me? Or is nothing being said? >> Guess what? My own father is an atheist! We get along fine! I just >> point out that abortion as a means of controlling population is an >> abomination, he disagrees and goes on to say that legislation against >> pornography is an abomination. Then he buys me dinner and we talk about >> the dog, my brothers, an upcoming fishing trip and have a swell time! > >I'm glad to hear this. It sounds like you're on the way the seeing >things the way they ought to be. I won't touch on abortion or >pornography now. Look at this article and see if you can figure out for >yourself. I'm just glad we had this conversation. Hunh?? >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!inhp4}!pucc-k!agz >Alcohol Design and Application Corp. --- Serving people over 21 years. >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oh!! So THAT'S the problem! -- David Brunson, M.N.