Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!microsof!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!floyd!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!duke!unc!tim
From: tim@unc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Views on Religions - (nf)
Message-ID: <5319@unc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Jun-83 12:53:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.5319
Posted: Mon Jun  6 12:53:16 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 7-Jun-83 23:04:16 EDT
Lines: 65

At first, I wasn't going to respond to this.  I get so many  per-
sonal  insults  on  net.religion that answering all of them would
keep me from doing anything else.  However, I hate to turn down a
clear challenge.

        Note: things in [[ ]] are from unc!tim, our resident fla-
        mer.......

                [[ Please do  not  make  unwarranted  assumptions
                about  all  religions  if all that you have known
                are popular religions.  These thrive  by  feeding
                the  lowest  impulses  of people and telling them
                that they are noble.  That is how they get  popu-
                lar,  by telling their members that the mere fact
                of membership is sufficient to make them superior
                to non-members. ]]

        Gee, Tim, that sounds like a fat generalization to me.  I
        am  Catholic, and I have NEVER felt that I was noble just
        because I was Catholic and Person X was  not.   I  resent
        the  accusation that my religion feeds only my lowest im-
        pulses to keep me interested. Maybe yours does and that's
        why you're so into it......

Gee, Eric, that sure doesn't sound like  the  Catholicism  I  was
raised  in.   The  Church had this thing called "exclusive salva-
tion".  In laymen's terms, if you aren't a Catholic, well,  sorry
about  that  but you have to go to Hell.  In Prolog, damned(X) :-
not_catholic(X).  This is a perfect example of the  sort  of  ex-
treme preferentialism fostered by popular religions.  How can you
treat the damned as equals when you are saved?  Perhaps  this  is
possible  for  a  few, but it would be silly to imagine that most
people can do this.  This sort of doctrine encourages a  lack  of
respect for unbelievers, and bolsters the ego of believers.

As for your accusation about my religion, it is irresponsible and
sophomoric,  and  has no place in a reasonable discussion.  A ra-
tional person does not talk about things he or she knows  nothing
about.


                [[ It is unreasonable to expect members of a  re-
                ligion not to bring up their children within that
                religion.   However,  this   need   not   involve
                brainwashing  and  jingoism.   Your sweeping gen-
                eralities are very insulting to people of all re-
                ligions.   Do not speak of "all religions" unless
                you know virtually all. ]]

        Thanks, Tim. I think you just abolished all need for this
        newsgroup.   No  one on netnews has seen everything, so I
        guess no one has the right to submit  an  opinion,  huh??
        Yeh,  RIGHT!!   I  don't think YOU have experienced every
        religion around, so why are you saying anything about the
        popular ones. Ease up.

More sophomoric nonsense.  My exhortation not  to  make  sweeping
generalizations  about  all religions has nothing to do with what
you claim I said.  This is obvious to any rational reader,  so  I
won't  belabor  it  here.  It is amazing to me that you could let
your temper control you like this in a  public  forum.   Ease  up
yourself.   Remember,  Christians have this thing about "Love thy
neighbor as thyself"?

Tim Maroney