Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Yellow Press in SciFi? (Response to Rosen) Message-ID: <4582@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 11-Jan-85 13:13:47 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.4582 Posted: Fri Jan 11 13:13:47 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jan-85 07:55:03 EST References: <1253@hou4b.UUCP>, <454@mhuxt.UUCP> <4554@cbscc.UUCP>, <368@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 132 }>>[from Jeff Sonntag:] }>>I seem to remember reading another story once where the man }>>who discovered the }>>fact that the earth revolves around the sun was put on trial by the catholic }>>church for heresy. And another where some religious nuts run something }>>called }>>the 'Spanish Inquisition', where they tortured lots of innocent people. And }>>another story where religious people accused each other of being 'witches' }>>and burned, hung, tortured, crushed beneath stones, etc each other. Those }>>writers must really have some kind of private grudge against religion! I }>>guess I'll just have to agree with Mark Terrible on this one. :-) }>> Wait a minute! I just remembered where I read those stories! My high }>>school history class. } }> Forgive me for even bothering with this response, but there is }> still something }> that bothers me about tounge-in-cheek statements like this. The lop-sided }> evidence Jeff marshalls against religion only seems to reveal his own private }> grudge against it. [PAUL DUBUC] } }Forgive me, too. Why is it that when religious believers proclaim "Humanism/ }scientism/anti-religionism is permeating our society, and this is bad because }it deteriorates religious belief" or some such variant, they offer no real }evidence that their negative wishful thinking on the subject of a non-religious }future is well founded? Yet when someone offers historical perspective on the }dangers of religion, it is labelled as slanderous. Quite a double standard }there. [Rich Rosen] Are you accusing me some something specific, Rich? If so, I wish you would document it. Why do you speak of "they" when responding to me? Is this a response to me or "them"? If I knew who "they" were and what exactly they were saying (who are you quoting above?) I might be able to agree with you that "they" shouldn't be doing what they do. But even if I did agree that still wouldn't justify Jeff's statements. Is that what you are trying to do? The point of my article (sorry you missed that, read it again if you care) was that Jeff's statements are not a valid historical perspective on the "dangers" of religion. } }> A more balanced approach to history might reveal far }> greater atrocities in countries where religious belief is routed and atheism }> is the rule. In those cases it is often claimed that such perfideous actions }> had nothing to do with the religious belief (or lack thereof) of their }> perpetrators. It's just a little strange that that it is often inferred that }> the religious beliefs (especially if they are Christian beliefs) have a }> direct causual link with things like the Inquisition and Salem Witch Trials. } }Look at what the people were tried for: not adhering to religious rules, }being different from the standards for the community set by religious }oligarchies. It's not strange at all; it *is* quite strange for you to try to }foist the opposite viewpoint upon us as fact. I'd venture that the "atheist" }countries you describe are far from humanist (whatever that means) in }their goals for society. Such countries have the same structure as those with }religious despotry or tyranny, the only difference being that the people who }reap the power and/or exercise the control are NOT the religious oligarchy. }It appears that the only real complaint that the religious leadership would }have with such atheistic tyranny is that THEY have been left out of the power }loop. (I know, they're *really* not power-hungry, just looking out for }people's real interests. Right...) We are talking about history, Rich. Do I have to spell it out to you? Stalin's Purge. The Gulag. The invasions of Cambodia and Afganistan. No freedom of the press, speech or religion (I know, you don't care about religion). No USENET! :-) Are you comfortable with these? Are these humanistic? I learned a long time ago that I should not judge atheism by actions like these (though I still don't know what standard they do accept for their actions). Why do you and Jeff persist in implying that similar actions are inherent to the Christian standard of belief (i.e. the Bible)? I don't see any justification for the Inquisition in the ethics of Christ as taught in the Bible. It wasn't until after the Reformation that Bible literacy became widespread (the printing press came into use during Luther's time). The Bible was translated into common languages (an offense that was punished violently by the church). This was probably the major factor that unified Germany's language and increased the literacy rate. Books were still scarce, but if someone had any book at all it was probably the Bible. The Reformation emphasis on the priesthood of the believer and personal study of the Scriptures greatly undermined abusive authority in the church. Even Luther's own bigoted admonishments against the Jews resulted in little persecution of them in his time. It is horrible that the Nazis were able to stir up those sentiments a few centuries later. Some persist in identifying biblical Christianity with Nazism. Poor Detrich Bonhoeffer (sp?). He died for nothing, in that case. That still leaves isolated horrors like Salem. But they were isolated. Salem can easily be viewed as a miniature of the situation that existed over most of Europe prior to the Reformation. These, along with the atheistic communist atrocies I mentioned are more of a lesson against the dangers seemingly inherent in absolute authority whether those in authority adhere to a particular religious belief or not. Those in power are able to twist the Bible to support self-serving ends and stifel corrective input. (This was often done to rally support for our own American Revolution, BTW. I think we generally consider the consequenses of that to be favorable.) If I were living in Salem knowing what I do now about Scriptural teaching I would have to oppose the witch trials--and probably been burned with them if I did. The situation was prone to paranoia; no one could just move to the next town to avoid the escalation of trouble. At any rate, the carnage imputed to Christians, especially since the Reformation, has nowhere near approched the magnitude of anti- religious regimes even in our own century. Anyone who is going to make a case againt religion using such critera had better realise that there is a much stronger case for religion using those same criteria. It is a very lop-sided use (abuse, rather) of historical fact to pretend that things like the Reformation never happened and to imply that actions like those done in the Inquisition are inherent in the religion I espouse. What other purpose does it serve to dig up the Inquisition as far as present day Christians or biblical belief are concerned? I fear for the lives of the next generation of Christians if this attitude is not given up. You can point you finger all you want at the intolerant attitude of many Christians. It will never justify your own attitude. Well, I've rambled on too long and have the feeling it won't do much good, but I want to emphasize the point I was trying to make in my last article: To pluck specific examples of abuse out of thier historical context for the purpose of presenting an "historical analysis" that those instances are inherent dangers in religious belief only paves the way for future intolerance of that religion. This is an attititude that is no less dangerous than that of the Inquisitors. It promotes the bigoted notion that there is nothng whatever good about religion. Does Germany owe no debt to Luther? England owe none to Wesley? We owe none to organizations like the Salvation Army and Rescue Mission? Come now; I thought you nonreligious folks were above the bias you so often attribute to Chrisians. Is anybody listening? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd