From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Ethics vs. Primitive Superstitions.  Was: Blatant lies
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 06:11:37 GMT

From article <16rci1INN5st@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Regarding questions pertaining to my religious beliefs, what do 
ml> you hope to accomplish by belittling them?  Do you think I am 
ml> going to take your word or sad logic over that of God?  Because 
ml> you cannot or will not believe in my God do you think that is 
ml> enough reason for me to change my beliefs?  Not hardly.  

Mike, you've cited the authority of your "god" to justify the
mistreatment of other thinking individuals, both human and non-
human.  In doing so, you yourself are inviting the scrutiny and
criticism that you apparently decry.

If I were to say that "Mr. X" says that killing animals is wrong 
and ought to be illegal, you'd surely demand proof that "Mr. X" 
not only exists but is an authority on the topic at hand.  Yet, 
you seem to think that we should accept the claims you make on 
behalf of your "god" at face-value without any sort of scrutiny 
whatsoever.  How come?   Is there something special about your
heresay comments about the will of "god" that would exempt them 
from public scrutiny?

rl> My position isn't religious.  Your assumption that all 
rl> discussions about ethical judgments must arise from religious 
rl> beliefs reveals your historical and philsophical naivete.  

ml> Ah, but the almighty empirical fact that Russell Lawrence
ml> worships so cannot be applied for the most part to ethics.  

rl> Yes, it certainly does apply to ethics.  Let's examine a case in 
rl> point.  Let's assume that you really do believe all biblical 
rl> statements, and hence, also believe that disease is caused by 
rl> demonic infestations.  If it were true that witches could bring 
rl> about these sickness-causing demonic infestations, then I might 
rl> agree with your "god's" commandment, "Thou shalt not suffer a 
rl> witch to live".  As it is, however, no evidence exists to prove 
rl> the biblical assumptions about the magical power of witches, so 
rl> you might be on shaky ethical ground if you were to set out on a 
rl> modern-day witch burning spree.  

ml> In your view.  Hardly important to me.

Do witches have rights, Mike?   Or, would you say that witches forfeit
their human rights by virtue of the fact that they don't share your
particular set of religious beliefs?  Does your "god" really have the
authority to rightfully issue the commandment: "Thou shalt not suffer
a witch to live"?

rl> On the other hand, there's quite a bit of evidence to indicate
rl> that Treponema pallidum causes syphilis, which ultimately 
rl> culminates in what might appear to be "demonic" fits (the result
rl> of neurological damage).  Consequently, I'd be on very solid
rl> ground if I were to declare that anyone who knowingly transmit 
rl> the Treponema spirochete is behaving unethically. 

ml> Perhaps.  I don't really think many people in the world establish
ml> their ethics on the views of Russell Lawrence though.  I know I
ml> don't.

Of course you don't.  There's a guy over in talk.abortion who 
shares, not only your opinion of me, but also your notion that 
ethical codes should be based on god-talk rather than on facts 
and reason.  Unfortunately for you, he considers protestant 
fundamentalists to be "heretics" and claims that the "One True 
Church" was doing the "right" thing when it stepped up the 
activities of the inquisition during the counter-reformation.  If 
he had unfettered power, you'd be on a barbeque spit at this very 
moment, just as witches might be on the grill if people like 
yourself still had the power to exercise various "divine" 
commandments and dispensations.  

> ...
rl> If "god" were to command you to kill a group of men, women, and 
rl> children, while refusing to explain his reasons, would you obey 
rl> command?  Or, would you disobey?  Would you agree with me that
rl> my body is the property of my mind?  Or would you be inclined to
rl> believe that my body is the property of some "god"?

ml> I am tempted to answer your question but, will not simply because 
ml> I know you will use it to try to ridicule me and my beliefs.  

Why don't you answer the questions in the previous paragraph so that
we can dig deeper into the apparently antagonistic relationship between
the concept of rights (human or animal) and your claims about the 
authority of "god"?

ml> Since anything that you say or feel is no where near of paramount 
ml> importance to me I will decline.  You only need to know that I 
ml> disagree with nearly all of your positions concerning animal 
ml> rights and hunting.  

As I've said before, we not only disagree about animals rights, 
but we disagree about human rights as well.  I don't think anyone 
has the right to persecute homosexuals, or burn witches, or 
murder innocent men, women, and children in the name of "god",
whereas you seem to think that all creatures can be treated as
your "god" sees fit, regardless of the personal thoughts and feelings
running through the minds of the victims.

> ...
ml> Did I or did I not specifically tell you I believe in "GOBLINS" or 
ml> "GODDESSES" as you said I did?   Does it matter to *anyone* whether you
ml> consider them to have primitive minds?

Did I specifically say that you believe in goblins or goddesses?  Please
cite the original passage.

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