On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, J. R. Molloy wrote:
> From: "Pat Inniss" <inniss@sprynet.com>
> > The President is certainly free to cite God, just as the murderers of
> > 9/11 almost certainly did. I think the discussion here is whether such
> > citations are proper for a leader in his position as the President of us
> > all, and more generally whether the nonreligious should in any way
> > dissemble their lack of faith. Had the President spoken specifically
> > from the perspective of a Methodist or whatever brand of Xian he is, or
> > even just as a Xian, with the assumption that everyone else saw things
> > that same way, he would have been criticized as intolerant and
> > exclusionary. However when atheists are not taken into account nobody
> > seems to give a damn. This snubbing certainly indicates that atheists
> > are less worthy, which is exactly how many persons feel. The President
> > could lapse into any sort of bigoted speech, it's his right, but I don't
> > cotton to him or anybody else promoting prejudice, no matter what the
> > circumstance.
>
> In further support of your excellent comments, I'd add that non-theist
> scientists have no obligation to participate in, or to in any way support holy
> wars. Let the homicidal religious fanatics of the world kill each other to
> fulfill the Armageddon prophecies that are part of their program. When it's
> over, meek scientists can inherit the Earth.
>
> > I hardly view anything to do with religion and our society's virtually
> > universal approval of this form of voluntary dementia as a side issue
> > after 9/11. We now find ourselves embroiled in what is, at its essence,
> > a religious war, whether or not we choose to acknowledge it as such.
> > Henceforth when one catalogs the horrors of religion down through the
> > ages, that date can be added to the list as a stark reminder that we're
> > far from out of this age of darkness yet. In addition to inspiring those
> > grim events, religious thinking deeply influences much of our nation's
> > policies, for the worse, from what I can tell. In the last couple of
> > weeks I have found myself becoming a lot less tolerant of other people's
> > stupidity, lack of intellectual integrity, or whatever you want to call
> > the particular set of superstitions we term "religion." It cannot be
> > defended as just a benign psychological aberration. It kills.
>
> Yes, that's exactly right: religion kills, and science heals (and note that
> religion often kills by using tools supplied by science). As Richard Dawkins
> has pointed out, one of the essential differences between science and religion
> is that scientists don't settle their differences by killing each other. We
> won't move into a better future until we debunk religiosity, the most
> regressive force now operating in society.
According to Guinness, the world record for the greatest slaughter in
history goes to Mao's China under an Atheistic Religion...30-60 million.
POC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:56 MDT