Posted by Amanda on January 02, 1997 at 02:44:41:
In Reply to: Re: Carl Sagan posted by Jason on January 02, 1997 at 00:14:29:
: : Just a comment on that last bit. I agree that atheists handing out hate material due to anit-religious beliefs is wrong but I don't think that all anti-religious material can be considered wrong. I consider myself not only a non-religious type but also an anit-religious type because I believe it does a lot of harm to soceity and humankind. I disagree with Sagan's comment that he made once concerning his opinion that we should just leave religion alone and if we can't be kind then be silent. I believe there is a middle groud that could do a lot of good and examples of such are the writings of Bertrand Russell and William Fielding - even Nietzsche to an extent. I do try not to attack people personally but I do attack religion and I try to do this in an intelligent manner with as much respect and kindness that is appropriate. Humanism has many aspects - my feeling is that everyone would be better off without religion. If you can show me where I might be wrong - please do.
: I probably touched on a major point of contension in the humanist/freethought
: movement. That is, to what extent should we be pro-human vs. anti-religious? I
: agree that religion certainly has its fair share of dogmatism and harm. We see
: things like cults, pseudoscience, hatred, war, healing frauds, etc... But there
: are many secular forms of harm, credulity, and dogmatism as well. An example
: would be Stalinism. Stalinism is a secular system but it was responsible for a
: host of atrocities, persecution, and even pseudoscience (Stalin supported the
: Lysenkoism fiasco).
I agree, there are other forms of harm but Stalinism didn't become as strong as religion did and certainly hasn't lasted as long.
: In the case of religion, although there are many Christians endorsing things
: like the Christian Coalition and young-earth creationism, there are many
: enlightened Christians who are more than happy to stand with us against them.
: Religion can certainly be harmful but it can be beneficial as well. Many
: religious people, including some friends of mine, are actively volunteering
: for the community. Many churches are involved in social justice causes (for
: example, things like human rights, environment, 3rd world aid, social security,
: and even things like fighting creationism, fighting the religious right,
: and supporting abortion rights). Overall, I think the enemy is not religion,
: but dogmatism. And we should oppose dogmatism in whatever form it may have,
: whether religious or secular.
The problem I have with this is the manipulation of definitions that has gone on over the centuries. Religion in the beginning was defined as belief in the supernatural and a Christian was defined as one who believed in the supernatural and who also believed in the bible literally and thought Jesus was the son of God. I'm well aware that religion and christianity now takes on many definitions but would it not be a lot less confusing if new words were used. I understand there are many non-theist groups that call their beliefs religious and now the popular definition is anything one might deem important or fundamental. I suppose when I attack religion and christianity I refer to the original definitions but it does bother me that the english language has been put through such manipulation to the point where people have no fucking clue as to what one means when the claim to be something or other.
: I'm not sure if you live in the USA, but perhaps there is more anti-religious
: sentiment because fundamentalism is widespread there. Here in Canada, religious
: fundamentalists aren't as commonplace. And when I do find fundamentalists,
: they're not as pushy and their beliefs are even watered down a bit.
I've lived in the USA for a year now - before that I was living in Canada where I was born and raised. I do agree that Canada is less effected by fundamentalism but still the harms I am focussing on in my writing are more than just the fundmentalist dogmatic type and I've seen many such examples in Canada. I suppose I may be letting my present environment exagerate my feelings - I am presently living in one of the two worst states for such one-sided, extreme right wing, religious fundamental crap. I do admit most of the harms were done in the past and no longer are relevant but I still see many in the present day - well-hidden and ones that take a lot of thought to understand and because they have been a part of us since the very moment we came into this world, it's even that much more difficult to break away and see them from the outside. Education, sex, family relations, moral and ethical issues, crime, politics and international relations are a few.
: Finally, this is off topic, but is there any truth to the claim that Madalyn
: Murray O'Hair tried to defect to the USSR once?
There have been a lot of rumours flying around about her. I wouldn't be surprised if she did try to get over to the Soviet Union - she had had many, many death threats while living here. I have heard she is in Texas - her one son is a born again Christian and hates her. I have also heard that she ran away with 600,000 dollars from whatever group she headed. I don't give much weight to any of these claims - I do however know that she did one good thing in her life and that was to get prayer out of the schools.
: - Jason
I'm not sure if you know this, but you might be interested in checking out a new book carried by Prometheus Books entitled "Canada - Church and State" - I believe it was written by Americans but I'm not sure.