From: cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark B. Bendiksen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Dangerous Drug (Was: Re: We'll all burn in hell!)
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:22:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Bill Maguire writes:

>In article <1bmp9tINNm9k@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> 
>cb366@cleveland.Freenet.Edu >(Mark:
>                                                   
>>This is where you begin to lose credibility. Religion is not in and
>>of itself dangerous. There are countless believers of many faiths
>>in our world who quietly and reverently worship their god of choice
>>and do not start wars or torture people. Their faith gives them a
>>moral code, and a being to direct their worship to. It sounds to me
>>like you are saying no to people having the choice to worship whoever
>>or whatever they want. Shouldn't people be able to do that? I'm sure
>>you don't want anyone telling you that you must "just say no to
>>atheism, a scourge upon humanity". Just because you do not see
>>the need to "talk to an invisible person" does not mean that it's not
>>helpful for other people                                                     
                                                             
>Shouldn't people be allowed to drink?  There are billions of people around
>the world that drink alcohol responsibly.  Should they be punished just 
>because a few million become alcoholics and beat their wives?  
>
>I'm bringing up this argument because it is the RELIGIONS of the world
>that have banned alcohol for these reasons.  It seems that if the
>argument is valid (which it isn't) and you ban one thing based on the
>argument then you should ban religion as well.  Or are you a hypocrite?
>
>-Bill

The point I was making in my response was that the author of the
"Dangerous Drug" post seemed to be advising that religion was a
"dangerous drug" which should be avoided at all costs, and that we
all must "just say no to religion, a scourge upon humanity". The
author, therefore, was attempting to say that because he does not
believe in religion, others must also refrain from seeking out God.
To me, that's infringing on someone else's rights, and therefore wrong.       
      

Your argument is false, because, first of all, not all religions
of the world have banned alcohol. But more importantly, those that
have do not prevent those outside their faith from taking a drink.
Moreoever, the reasons some religions have banned alcohol in the
first place have nothing to do with alcoholics beating their wives
(as you suggested), but because of the doctrine of that particular group.

On a specific note, Christianity does not ban drinking. The
scriptures do command believers in the faith not be drunk,
but God has no commandments against drinking itself.
Now, a particular denomination or church may command
its members to abstain from alcohol, but there's NO DENOMINATION
THAT PREVENTS NON-BELIEVERS FROM DRINKING.

As many atheists are so quick to point out, the U.S. constitution
separates the church and state. But that's a two-way street. People
should be able to worship as they wish or not worship as they
wish without any repercussions.


Mark B. Bendiksen
cb366@freenet.cwru.edu
-- 
"If we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto,
 We'll just be bogus, too."-- Dr. Jeff Spicolli
Newsgroups: alt.atheism