From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: an observation
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:50:51 GMT


Dan Sorenson writes:
ds> Just a nit, Russ, but rights are a fairly new concept.  At
ds> the time the Bible was written, human rights were not known nor
ds> even contemplated in most areas.  What you had was privlidge, based
ds> almost solely on power...

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I agree that rights are a fairly new concept for us humans, but this
rl> limitation would hardly apply to Mike Linan's omniscient "god".

From article <viking.718618509@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds>  That God did not exist as a human concept until about 2000
ds> years ago, and you'll kindly note that power is what kept the other
ds> gods alive for several hundred years thereafter.  The Scandanavian
ds> countries were openly worshipping Thor and Odin nearly a millenia
ds> after Jesus Christ died, and this despite heavy targeting by
ds> priests in both Scandanavia and in Constantinople, where such
ds> notable Scandanavians as Harald Hadrada (Harold the Tyrant) were
ds> given serious military experience.  The Varangian Guardsmen were
ds> not Christian or Muslim despite the influences of the region.

You're contradicting Mr. Linan's claims.  He says that his "god" 
is omniscient, created both non-human animals and mankind, 
and is all-powerful.  If such a "god" truly exists, he would not 
be limited by the restraints of human intellectual development.  
On the other hand, if this "god" is the product of the human 
imagination, then it's inappropriate to invoke his dictates as a 
rationale for our abuse or misuse of other individuals.  Instead
of saying, "God gave animals to humans", perhaps Mike Linan should
say, "A man named Jeremiah told his scribe, Baruch, son of Neriyah, 
that animals belong to humans".

It seems to me that a benevolent, omniscient "god" would have 
taught his creatures to honor the thoughts and feelings of other 
thinking/feeling individuals instead of giving them contrary 
commandments to hamper their development.

rl> Yet, the philosophers who pioneered the development of the concept of
rl> rights (ie Locke, Jefferson, Paine, etc) from the late 17th century
rl> onward faced stiff opposition from clerics who claimed to represent 
rl> the christian deity.  How come?

ds> Would you like theories or facts?  That the poeple you mention
ds> above rendered a Church a mute political force certainly would have
ds> caused alarm in the churches of the day.  Why, just imagine no
ds> state religion!  The pilgrims weren't here to gain religous freedom;
ds> they came here to escape religous persecution.  The same can be said
ds> of Brigham Young and his tribe of merry Mormons settling in what is
ds> now Salt Lake City, Utah several centuries later.  You will kindly
ds> note that some of the Founders were athiests, and many belonged to
ds> no organized religion.  Thus it makes perfect sense, in my theory,
ds> for their views of individual liberties to have been opposed by the
ds> organized religions of the time.  

Clerical opposition to concepts of personal rights involved quite a
bit more than the desire to protect state religions.  The principle
that was most endangered was the concept of the great chain of
being that still lies at the core of christianity as we know it 
today.  The notion of the "chain of being" lost much of its power 
during the political turmoil of the 17th century and this set the 
stage for the development of both scientific thinking as well as 
the concept of rights.  

ds> Really, though, this isn't relevant.

Yes it is.  And Mike Linan's notions about the dictates of his 
"god" illustrate the relativity quite plainly.  If the bodies of 
animals, both human and non-human are the rightful property of 
"gods", rather than the minds contained within the bodies of 
those animals, then the concept of "rights" loses its meaning.  

rl> Isn't it a shame that "god" said:
rl>    "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

ds>  No more a shame than, "Sodomy shall be a felony offense within
ds> the borders of the state of Mississippi."  This is not a quote,
ds> just a plausible example.

I disagree.  It's one thing if Dan Sorenson says, "We ought to kill
all the stupid republicans."  It's far less honest, and/or far
more hypocritical, if Dan Sorenson says, "I was talking with God this
morning and He says we must kill the republicans".  In the first
statement, the speaker would be presenting his own opinion, whereas
in the second statement the speaker would be casting his own voice
into the Mouth of God the way a ventriloquist uses a dummy.

rl> Instead of saying something like:
rl>    "Thou shalt respect the thoughts and feelings of other beings."

ds> "Judge not, lest ye be judged", "let he who is without sin cast
ds> the first stone," and "do unto others and you would have them do unto you"
ds> seem to convey the same message.

Sure.  And how about, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you".   Both statements oblige us to stop and consider the possibility
that other minds exist, and that our own minds are not all-powerful.
Both quotations reflect an entirely different notion about the
nature of meaningful existence than the notion that we find embodied
in the passage: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals