Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp2.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull From: jhull@spp2.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: dark ages Message-ID: <289@spp2.UUCP> Date: Mon, 3-Dec-84 16:21:19 EST Article-I.D.: spp2.289 Posted: Mon Dec 3 16:21:19 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 6-Dec-84 03:21:50 EST References: <728@oliven.UUCP> Reply-To: jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach CA Lines: 89 Summary: In article <728@oliven.UUCP> danw@oliven.UUCP (danw) writes: >>> OK creationists are not stupid. >>> The question i would like to see addressed is: >>> Are they dangerous? >>> Could (the dark ages) happen again? >>> danw >>> >>Your questions are provoking. Would you please expand on them a bit >>so I more clearly see the direction of your argument? >> >>The prime motivation behind the repression of the budding scientific >>community was their fear of loss of control over the community at >>large, which has since happened. The problem was caused by power >>politics (God save us from all theocracies!) practiced by a group (the >>church) that should never have gotten into that area of human >>endeavor. >> >>I believe that a little thought will show that conditions today are >>sufficiently different to render your argument unsupportable. I look >>forward to reading your reply (presumably to the contrary). >> >> Jeff Hull > >My point is the creationists ,while individually peaceful, are part of >a larger movement that holds the greatest threat to personal liberties >and civilization that can possibly be imagined. Then, please address your argument to that "larger Movement" rather than the smaller (perhaps you think easier to attack?) piece. P.S. I might accept "an exceptionally serious threat" but "greatest threat" is propaganda hype. >Contemplating the possible emergence of a technological based THEOCRACY >has got to be the ultimate libertarian nightmare. I absolutely agree with you. However, if you read the history of the US, you will find the founding fathers prime principle was a belief in God as the Source of all things. Second, they did what they could to ensure that THE STATE (emphasis mine) would never impose any religious position on any citizen (see the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment). Virtually everything published today concerning separation of church & state is propaganda (I haven't been able to identify the source to my own satisfaction. Candidates are socialists, secular humanists (I'm a humanist, but not secular), politicians who wish to render the body politic impotent, add your own candidates here...) whose prime purpose seems to be to convince a large segment of the population, who would otherwise be very active politically, to stay at home on election day. >The efforts of these people to force their will via the legislatures, and >school boards MUST be opposed at all costs. If you disagree with them, then, oppose them. "At all costs" to yourself, not out of my pocket. >The cost of freedom is eternal vigilantes. And responsible disagreement is the source of progress. >Those that believe " a little thought will show that conditions today are >sufficiently different to render your argument unsupportable." >Are doomed to repeat the histories of Germany , Spain and Iran. I didn't say your conclusions were wrong, simply that your argument is not adequately worked out. Come on, this is an intellectual and emotional challenge to debate. At least respond to what I said. >A return to the dark ages is possible when enough people are , apathetic >, don't think it's possible , or work to make it possible. >(We have plenty of the former and the later. It is to those who don't >think it isn't possible that i make my appeal) I assume you mean, I appeal to those who think a recurrance of the dark ages isn't possible. > People laughed at the hitler youth. > People laughed at the Iatola Kolmanie (sp) > People are laughing at the creationists. > >For g*ds sake, take these people seriously, they deserve to be >taken seriously. Here, I absolutely agree with danw. The real enemy we have to face is apathy. Come on, people, get involved. The only protection any of us have from oppression is a sufficiently large, sufficiently informed, sufficiently INVOLVED group of people who will keep extremists of all kinds from imposing their views on the rest of us. Anything we can do to foster involvement and tolerance (are these two goals Really incompatible? :-) ) has to be worthwhile. -- Blessed Be, jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250