Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 02-04-2002, 02:47 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fromtheright:
turtonm,
Have you ever thought that maybe there is more community service because of the need for it?

No, there is less need for community service than ever, since there are such a wide range of programs for the poor at the government level. But still, we volunteer.

Most of the new community service is new community activities -- US communities host thousands of activities from soccer to large fairs, that they hadn't hosted 50 years ago.

More people than ever before have taken part in a political protest"? You cite that as evidence that there is no moral decline?

Yep. In the old days, people were more meekly accepting of what the government and large corporations told them. They asserted fewer of their political rights. Now it is routine for people to join public protests. This is better for everyone, as democratic government depends on public participation. The US is as a consequence, more democratic now than ever before.

Most of your responses are couched in rights-language, not responsibility-language on which morality is based, unless you argue that we have no moral obligations to each other.

Don't be silly. The things I cite, such as community service, political protest, open acceptance of other lifestyles and sexual choices, these are all part of our moral obligations to each other. I can't help it if you subscribe to a moral system whose major focus seems to be making sure that males ejaculate in the right orifice, but on this site we have far more complex and robust views of our debts to our fellow beings.

The Bible as a moral guide is of extremely limited worth for at least 3 reasons. First, it is incomplete. There are aspects of moral behavior, especially at the level of society and the environment, which the Bible simply does not address. For example, according to Jesus, where's the best place to site an incinerator? According Jesus, should we subsidize infant industries? According to Jesus, are large dams the proper way to manage river systems?

Second, it never changes, but human society does.

Third, it is objectionable on moral grounds. I do not have any desire to kill my wife because she was not a virgin on her wedding night, as the Bible recommends, nor do I approve of slavery as the Bible so obviously does, nor do I find premarital or gay sex immoral. What two people do with their own bodies is their own business.

If you people really believe that then you really are a bunch of utopians with no attachment to reality.

<shrug> We look forward to the day when humanity gives up its belief in fairy sky daddies, and stops killing each other over them. I don't see it happening right away, but places like Europe and East Asia give me guarded hope that people can give up religion. I'd rather be an idealist than a believer in brutal, intolerant, authoritarian belief systems like Christianity or Communism.

And it's hard to debate such extremism.

Yes, I realize how different our point of view is from yours. It's easy to see you must have trouble wrapping your mind around it.

I am curious too, how would you "eliminate" religion?

Through education, critical thinking, and the teaching of social values, such as respect for others, tolerance, and human rights, that religious thinking hates so much.

Michael

E_muse · 02-04-2002, 06:11 PM

Bill,

I find your comments stimulating and interesting but have some points which I wish to raise.

Quote:

Morality is not based on "responsibilities" any more than it is based on "rights". Morality is based on values.

And society itself must be upheld upon a system of values which need to be reinforced within that community.

Quote:

I venture to guess that virtually all theists (especially Christians) are deontologists of some form or another.

I take this to mean that our sense of responsibility to others is as a sense of 'duty' or 'moral obligation'.

Is this really an atheist/theist issue? If a particular society is established upon certain values, how does it deal with those whose subjective preferences do not correspond to those values or ideals? And on what basis do these 'deviants' comply, if not out of a sense of duty?

Quote:

To clarify further, I am saying that the reason that we should act in an ethical manner with respect to other people lies not in any imagined "duty" to them, but in the clear and unavoidable path of our own self-interest.

But this is merely your opinion and cannot change the basis for people's actions. Your argument proves that people can act in an ethical manner out of a sense of duty.

Some behave ethically and charitably towards others out of sense of respect for others, or compassion, or guilt.... certainly not just duty though.

However, I'm suggesting that people must act out of duty where certain values and aims require a certain standard of behaviour and subjective agreement is not present. Much in the same way that a soldier will obey the commands of his officer in fulfilling a certain task in achieving a certain aim. The issue cannot be - how do I feel?

To insist that a certain way of thinking must be the basis for certain actions is a form of plagiarism isn't it?

You've already seen that behaving ethically is helpful to the individual as well as to the society in order to draw this conclusion surely? How can you then insist that your rationalization of this behaviour should be the motivation behind such behaviour when clearly it isn't always?

Quote:

In human societies of the past, this was provided through the communities of religion and religious practice, morality being seen as the purview of religion (there's that deontology again!).

Whereas in the future it will be on the basis of... if we accept what Michael is saying about 'eliminating religion' then on the basis of secular humanistic thinking presumably.

How can this be achieved unless one somehow manages to control the way that people think. How can you stop people from having religious experiences?

Quote:

However, just as there is no necessary connection between "religion" and "community", so too is there no necessary connection between "religion" and "morality".

But must there be a connection between 'community' and 'secular humanism' either?

Quote:

Exposed to so many different standards and practices, people end up wondering if any real standards exist at all.

A very real question. What are real standards? A culturally agreed set of subjectively based standards surely?

And presumably, withing the context of evolution, all 'standards' are equally legitimate expressions of human behaviour on the basis of differing subjective preferences.

Quote:

I would argue that here lies the danger in using religion, or any culturally/socially "closed" community, as a basis for moral development.

But the Secular Web is regarded as an online community of non-believers. We have already seen the accusation above that it is 'intellectually incestuous'.

Yet many within this commnity would want to make their way of thinking the basis of what they see as a healthy community or society. We've already seen Michael's desire to eliminate religion.

Secular humanism could not be used as the basis for a society seems to be the implication because any society built upon a particular philisophical preference would by its very nature be 'closed', 'closed' to certain ways of understanding reality.

Any 'open' system must then have religion at its heart somewhere by virtue of the fact that it is open. How does this differ from the claims of the book under discussion?

You already argued yourself that ethical behaviour should be on the basis of self interest. However, you could never base a society on such a statement. You could never insist that this is how people must think.

Quote:

I would argue instead that a lasting and effective moral system must have necessary ties to human needs as a whole, rather than any one particular culture or tradition. Consequentialist moral systems, which derive the "good" or "evil" of actions based on their outcomes, seem to me the best fit in this respect.

But then 'good' outcomes happen as a result of man's evil and vice versa. Take for example the alliances which emerge between certain coutries during a war or other international crisis. It isn't that simple is it?

Quote:

By basing our ethical practice on the needs of the necessarily all-inclusive community of humanity, we can develop ethical standards and norms that serve humanity as a whole and are not therefore subject to the divisions of culture and tradition.

But those ethical standards and norms (as a product of rationalization) will always be informed by the differences that exist within that society and therefore always informed by religion.

What you seem to be arguing here is that the process of human rationalization can produce a set of ethical standards and norms which transcend culture and tradition.

Are you suggesting that the power of human reason is somehow culturally transcendent? How can the power of human reason rise above differences that it is responsible for creating?

Surely one particular way of thinking would have to become dominant in order for this to be achieved.

And these agreed standards and 'norms' will only be agreed to be serving humanity by those who have made that conclusion.

And of course, because of human nature, these standards would have to be enforceable.

Quote:

I'm certainly not arguing that such a change will be easy, but turning back to the failed moral systems of religious practice could be a disaster.

But then athestic systems have been seen to fail as well haven't they?

Religious moral systems fail because of people. That is why atheistic systems have failed. What does that teach us?

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]

E_muse · 02-04-2002, 06:47 PM

Quote:

No, there is less need for community service than ever, since there are such a wide range of programs for the poor at the government level. But still, we volunteer.

Yes. Wasn't it George Bush who wanted to give money to religious groups engaged in community service and helping the disadvantaged? I seem to remember there being some fuss about that on these boards....

Quote:

Yep. In the old days, people were more meekly accepting of what the government and large corporations told them. They asserted fewer of their political rights. Now it is routine for people to join public protests. This is better for everyone, as democratic government depends on public participation. The US is as a consequence, more democratic now than ever before.

I suppose you're referring to people like Martin Luther King who have become role models for such protests.

Quote:

Don't be silly. The things I cite, such as community service, political protest, open acceptance of other lifestyles and sexual choices, these are all part of our moral obligations to each other.

But according to Bill I shouldn't feel obliged. I should do such things out of my own self interest.

Quote:

I can't help it if you subscribe to a moral system whose major focus seems to be making sure that males ejaculate in the right orifice, but on this site we have far more complex and robust views of our debts to our fellow beings.

So males ejaculating in the right orifices doesn't bother you then Michael? What about paedophilia? That kinda touches on this issue.

You set up a rationalization of how Christians view sexual issues that you can easily pull down. Not very convincing.

And as for 'debts' see above re: Bill Snedden. You speak as though you are a spokesman for the site and yet your views (paricularly over moral debt) do not represent a consensus opinion - which needs to be stated.

Quote:

The Bible as a moral guide is of extremely limited worth for at least 3 reasons. First, it is incomplete. There are aspects of moral behavior, especially at the level of society and the environment, which the Bible simply does not address.

I agree. That's why it points beyond itself.

Quote:

Second, it never changes, but human society does.

People have to readjust their methods of interpretation. The text doesn't change but again this is another over simplification.

Quote:

Third, it is objectionable on moral grounds. I do not have any desire to kill my wife because she was not a virgin on her wedding night, as the Bible recommends, nor do I approve of slavery as the Bible so obviously does, nor do I find premarital or gay sex immoral. What two people do with their own bodies is their own business.

While authorities make decisions on what is acceptable and not acceptable it is never simply 'their own business'.

Quote:

We look forward to the day when humanity gives up its belief in fairy sky daddies, and stops killing each other over them.

Thankfully most of civilized society doesn't view religion in this way.

Quote:

Through education, critical thinking, and the teaching of social values, such as respect for others, tolerance, and human rights, that religious thinking hates so much.

And not just religious thinking. Your arguement that intolerance only rests upon a theistic paradigm is a complete strawman. If it is the natural tendency of man to tolerate and respect, why hasn't it happened before now?

Religion can only be what man is to begin with if God does not exist. Religion didn't make man, man made religion.

As for your comment that religious thinking hates human rights, I'll refer you back to my earlier comment regarding Martin Luther King.

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]

Writer@Large · 02-04-2002, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fromtheright:
Writer,
As to whether there is in fact decline, what of the oft-cited measures of teenage illegitimacy, crime, divorce, and others? Are these not evidences of decline?

I don't view divorce as neccessarily immoral, for one thing. As for the others ... do you have hard facts to support your position? According to the FBI, <a href="http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/01prelimcius.htm" target="_blank">crime was down for the first six months of 2001</a>, and a little research will show that this is a trend going back at least to 1996. As for "teenage illegitimacy" (I assume you mean teen pregnancy), articles <a href="http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/or_teen_preg_decline.html" target="_blank">here,</a><a href="http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/coststudy/trends.htm" target="_blank">here,</a> and <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/01news/newbirth.htm" target="_blank">here</a> indicate they're on the decline, as well.

Quote:

What aspects of Judaeo-Christianity do you find extremely damaging?

Depends. What's your particular brand of Xianity? They all have their issues, not the least of which is that they can't seem to agree between them what J-X morals *are*, exactly.

--W@L

Happy Wonderer · 02-04-2002, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fromtheright:
Writer,
As to whether there is in fact decline, what of the oft-cited measures of teenage illegitimacy, crime, divorce, and others? Are these not evidences of decline? What aspects of Judaeo-Christianity do you find extremely damaging?

Others have taken on different points, I'll take on "teenage illegitimacy." I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "teenage illegitimacy", but teenage pregnancy rates are at a one of the lowest rates since the 70's (when the CDC started tracking them.) At least in recent history, this would argue that our "moral capital" is increasing?

<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/01news/trendpreg.htm" target="_blank">Teenage pregnancy rates from CDC</a>
<a href="http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/pd042999c.html" target="_blank">Teen pregnancy rates decline</a>

However, it is interesting that the rate in the US hasn't fallen as fast as in other nations in the developed world, yet we have one of the higher rates of church attendance relative to other developed countries:
<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/pregrates000224.html" target="_blank">US teen pregnancy rate one of the highest in developed world</a>
<a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm" target="_blank">US has high rate of church attendance</a>

Many years ago, a young unmarried intern at my office became pregnant (I believe she was 18 or 19.) The older ladies were scandalized. I innocently asked one of them how old she was when she had her first child. Her reply? "17, but things were different then!"

At what point in history did America have greater "moral capital" than today? Pick a year. (Sharpens claws...)

IMO the country is heading neither toward utopia, nor the cesspool -- the citizens of the country are pretty much behaving as they always have but with different technology and a lot more people. We have problems because of both facts, but I don't think they are related to any decline in moral capital. Just my opinion, since I don't know what units Moral Capital could be measured in. (Pica?)

Take care...

HW

Trying to fix links,

.

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Happy Wonderer ]

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Happy Wonderer ]

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Happy Wonderer ]

Vorkosigan · 02-05-2002, 12:12 AM

turton: What two people do with their own bodies is their own business.

E_Muse: While authorities make decisions on what is acceptable and not acceptable it is never simply 'their own business'.

How is that again? If I go to a party and pick up a member of my own or the opposite sex, and then have sex in a private area, how is it anyone else's business?

I agree. That's why it points beyond itself.

The Bible does not "point beyond itself." There's nothing beyond it to point to, for one thing. For another, there's no guide to what we're expected to find out there, in terms of morals, in any case.

turton: Second, it never changes, but human society does.

People have to readjust their methods of interpretation. The text doesn't change but again this is another over simplification.

No, E_muse, society progress, evolves. Things like slavery are unacceptable now, but clearly supported in the Bible. So are various forms of male oppression of females now considered archaic and embarrassing in the western world (although not here in Taiwan, where being a prostitute is illegal, while soliticiting one is not). Morever, technology enables all sorts of options not envisioned by Canaanite sheepherders and villagers two millennia ago. Biotechnology alone has created dozens of new dilemmas for which there is no guidance in the Bible. Is it moral to tamper with genes? How about transfer them from organism to organism?

But according to Bill I shouldn't feel obliged. I should do such things out of my own self interest.

What! Two atheists have a disagreement about morals? Imagine that!

turtonm: We look forward to the day when humanity gives up its belief in fairy sky daddies, and stops killing each other over them.

E_muse: Thankfully most of civilized society doesn't view religion in this way.

Yes, we secular types have been teaching society tolerance for quite some time now, and it seems to have taken hold even in religious circles. I've even heard of clerics advocating "Christian tolerance," an oxymoron if there ever was one. Christians learned their tolerance from living in a secular society.

BTW, in civilized countries in Europe, religion is viewed rather dimly. I am sure you are aware of Church attendence rates there.

[]bAnd not just religious thinking. Your arguement that intolerance only rests upon a theistic paradigm is a complete strawman.

Intolerance does not rest solely upon theistic thinking. I never made any such argument. It is merely one of several sources of intolerance. That is why it will never disappear until people give up silly ideas like Final Judgements.

If it is the natural tendency of man to tolerate and respect, why hasn't it happened before now?

I did not say it was the natural tendency of people (not "man") to tolerate and respect others. Rather, what I said was that education was the source of that way of thinking.

Michael

moon · 02-05-2002, 12:46 AM

Guenter Lewy is one of those religionists who completely disregards major commandments, such as the commandments not to kill or to lie.

For example, in describing U.S. air operations in South Vietnam in the early '60's, which concentrated on civilians, and involved "indiscriminate killing" and "took a heavy toll of essentially innocent men, women and children" in "open zones" that were "subjected to random bombardment by artillery and aircraft so as to drive the inhabitants into the safety of the strategic hamlets." (Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam, Oxford University Press, 1978) "Strategic hamlets" were concentration camps the U.S. had set up in order to herd civilians, and prevent the freedom fighters from getting more recruits.

In the fine tradition of Christian genocide, Lewy praises such acts of wholesale slaughter.

E_muse · 02-05-2002, 02:15 AM

Quote:

How is that again? If I go to a party and pick up a member of my own or the opposite sex, and then have sex in a private area, how is it anyone else's business?

Such behaviour is permitted under societical laws.

Quote:

The Bible does not "point beyond itself." There's nothing beyond it to point to, for one thing. For another, there's no guide to what we're expected to find out there, in terms of morals, in any case.

How can the Bible be an incomplete moral guide and not point beyond itself.

Secondly, the arguement that there is nothing beyond itself for the Bible to point to isn't proof that it isn't pointing beyond itself.

People do have to base society on some kind of value system - I'm not arguing with that. I would argue that it must do it on a subjective basis. Religion is largely subjective. It is whether a basis can be found for moral values on the grounds of pure reason or whether instinct (of which religion is a part) has a part to play.

Society existed before rationalism.

Quote:

No, E_muse, society progress, evolves. Things like slavery are unacceptable now, but clearly supported in the Bible.

Didn't William Wilberforce play a significant part in that? He was most certainly a theist.

So why is it that so many Christians don't see this as a problem, or at least, not a threat to their theism?

Quote:

What! Two atheists have a disagreement about morals? Imagine that!

But again you were using terms like 'we' as though your opinions are to be generally considered fact.

Quote:

Yes, we secular types have been teaching society tolerance for quite some time now, and it seems to have taken hold even in religious circles. I've even heard of clerics advocating "Christian tolerance," an oxymoron if there ever was one. Christians learned their tolerance from living in a secular society.

Evidence? Please take into account social reforms which were instituted by theists. I've already mentioned Martin Luther King and William Wilberforce.

Quote:

BTW, in civilized countries in Europe, religion is viewed rather dimly. I am sure you are aware of Church attendence rates there.

I work for a Christian charity in Europe (the UK actually). Most of our funding comes from non-Christian sources.

Quote:

Intolerance does not rest solely upon theistic thinking. I never made any such argument.

No, you just haven't drawn attention to the fact.

Quote:

I did not say it was the natural tendency of people (not "man") to tolerate and respect others. Rather, what I said was that education was the source of that way of thinking.

Can education actually give people the power to overcome instincts which are in opposition to such teaching?

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]

Godless Dave · 02-05-2002, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fromtheright:
Writer,
As to whether there is in fact decline, what of the oft-cited measures of teenage illegitimacy, crime, divorce, and others? Are these not evidences of decline?

Teenage pregnancy and crime have both been declining. So no, I wouldn't say that's evidence of moral decline.

The high divorce rate, in and of itself, is not a sign of moral decline. I'm not a big fan of divorce, but if one spouse is beating the other, divorce is a good thing. If two people got married when they were 20 and both realized they made a big mistake, maybe they should get divorced.

Divorce is bad when people forsake their family responsibilities, and/or commit adultery. I'll agree many divorces are as a result of people not taking their marriages seriously, and that is a sign of defective morals.

But how would religion improve this? Historically organized religion has pressured people to get married young, and pressured people to remain married to abusive spouses. The divorce rate among religious people is much higher than among atheists (source: <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm" target="_blank">http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm</a> ).

Quote:

What aspects of Judaeo-Christianity do you find extremely damaging?

1. Treatment of women. Historically, Judaism and Christianity have taught that women should be subservient to men. Some Jews and Christians still teach this.

2. Treatment of homosexuals.

3. Belief in the supernatural, and furthermore, the belief that the Judeo-Christian concepts of the supernatural are the only correct beliefs.

But beyond all that, even if I did accept your argument that a religious society is a more moral society, that would not in any way provide evidence of God's existence.

The assertion that children who believe in Santa Claus enjoy Christmas more than children who don't is not evidence for the existence of Santa Claus.

Dave

lpetrich · 02-05-2002, 01:23 PM

Quote:

fromtheright:
All I could do in the space of a reply here would be a very brief summary of his argument, that attachment to religion brings moral discipline to society and that as that attachment weakens so does society in such measures as single motherhood and crime. ...

The honest version of that position is the royal-lie theory of religion, the theory that religion is desirable as the opium of the people. This view was common in Greco-Roman antiquity; I'm sure that Richard Carrier has run into it during his researches.

If that is the case, then IMO the best strategy is to work out what is the least obnoxious "royal lie" to impose upon society. Taking piously about the "Judeo-Christian tradition" is no answer, because what is commonly passed off as that is nothing more than a certain form of Political Correctness.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-04-2002, 02:47 PM	#21
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	[QUOTE]Originally posted by fromtheright: turtonm, Have you ever thought that maybe there is more community service because of the need for it? No, there is less need for community service than ever, since there are such a wide range of programs for the poor at the government level. But still, we volunteer. Most of the new community service is new community activities -- US communities host thousands of activities from soccer to large fairs, that they hadn't hosted 50 years ago. More people than ever before have taken part in a political protest"? You cite that as evidence that there is no moral decline? Yep. In the old days, people were more meekly accepting of what the government and large corporations told them. They asserted fewer of their political rights. Now it is routine for people to join public protests. This is better for everyone, as democratic government depends on public participation. The US is as a consequence, more democratic now than ever before. *Most of your responses are couched in rights-language, not responsibility-language on which morality is based, unless you argue that we have no moral obligations* to each other. Don't be silly. The things I cite, such as community service, political protest, open acceptance of other lifestyles and sexual choices, these are all part of our moral obligations to each other. I can't help it if you subscribe to a moral system whose major focus seems to be making sure that males ejaculate in the right orifice, but on this site we have far more complex and robust views of our debts to our fellow beings. The Bible as a moral guide is of extremely limited worth for at least 3 reasons. First, it is incomplete. There are aspects of moral behavior, especially at the level of society and the environment, which the Bible simply does not address. For example, according to Jesus, where's the best place to site an incinerator? According Jesus, should we subsidize infant industries? According to Jesus, are large dams the proper way to manage river systems? Second, it never changes, but human society does. Third, it is objectionable on moral grounds. I do not have any desire to kill my wife because she was not a virgin on her wedding night, as the Bible recommends, nor do I approve of slavery as the Bible so obviously does, nor do I find premarital or gay sex immoral. What two people do with their own bodies is their own business. If you people really believe that then you really are a bunch of utopians with no attachment to reality. <shrug> We look forward to the day when humanity gives up its belief in fairy sky daddies, and stops killing each other over them. I don't see it happening right away, but places like Europe and East Asia give me guarded hope that people can give up religion. I'd rather be an idealist than a believer in brutal, intolerant, authoritarian belief systems like Christianity or Communism. And it's hard to debate such extremism. Yes, I realize how different our point of view is from yours. It's easy to see you must have trouble wrapping your mind around it. I am curious too, how would you "eliminate" religion?** Through education, critical thinking, and the teaching of social values, such as respect for others, tolerance, and human rights, that religious thinking hates so much. Michael

02-05-2002, 12:12 AM	#26
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	turton: What two people do with their own bodies is their own business. E_Muse: While authorities make decisions on what is acceptable and not acceptable it is never simply 'their own business'. How is that again? If I go to a party and pick up a member of my own or the opposite sex, and then have sex in a private area, how is it anyone else's business? I agree. That's why it points beyond itself. The Bible does not "point beyond itself." There's nothing beyond it to point to, for one thing. For another, there's no guide to what we're expected to find out there, in terms of morals, in any case. turton: Second, it never changes, but human society does. People have to readjust their methods of interpretation. The text doesn't change but again this is another over simplification. No, E_muse, society progress, evolves. Things like slavery are unacceptable now, but clearly supported in the Bible. So are various forms of male oppression of females now considered archaic and embarrassing in the western world (although not here in Taiwan, where being a prostitute is illegal, while soliticiting one is not). Morever, technology enables all sorts of options not envisioned by Canaanite sheepherders and villagers two millennia ago. Biotechnology alone has created dozens of new dilemmas for which there is no guidance in the Bible. Is it moral to tamper with genes? How about transfer them from organism to organism? But according to Bill I shouldn't feel obliged. I should do such things out of my own self interest. What! Two atheists have a disagreement about morals? Imagine that! turtonm: We look forward to the day when humanity gives up its belief in fairy sky daddies, and stops killing each other over them. E_muse: Thankfully most of civilized society doesn't view religion in this way. Yes, we secular types have been teaching society tolerance for quite some time now, and it seems to have taken hold even in religious circles. I've even heard of clerics advocating "Christian tolerance," an oxymoron if there ever was one. Christians learned their tolerance from living in a secular society. BTW, in civilized countries in Europe, religion is viewed rather dimly. I am sure you are aware of Church attendence rates there. []bAnd not just religious thinking. Your arguement that intolerance only rests upon a theistic paradigm is a complete strawman. Intolerance does not rest solely upon theistic thinking. I never made any such argument. It is merely one of several sources of intolerance. That is why it will never disappear until people give up silly ideas like Final Judgements. If it is the natural tendency of man to tolerate and respect, why hasn't it happened before now? I did not say it was the natural tendency of people (not "man") to tolerate and respect others. Rather, what I said was that education was the source of that way of thinking. Michael

02-05-2002, 12:46 AM	#27
moon Banned Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: former British colony Posts: 2,013	Guenter Lewy is one of those religionists who completely disregards major commandments, such as the commandments not to kill or to lie. For example, in describing U.S. air operations in South Vietnam in the early '60's, which concentrated on civilians, and involved "indiscriminate killing" and "took a heavy toll of essentially innocent men, women and children" in "open zones" that were "subjected to random bombardment by artillery and aircraft so as to drive the inhabitants into the safety of the strategic hamlets." (Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam, Oxford University Press, 1978) "Strategic hamlets" were concentration camps the U.S. had set up in order to herd civilians, and prevent the freedom fighters from getting more recruits. In the fine tradition of Christian genocide, Lewy praises such acts of wholesale slaughter.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.