From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:09:52 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <nyikos.716476657@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep13.154534.19424@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.co
>
> >In  <nyikos.716340103@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Pete
> >>
> >> "Dozens of Church leaders, including the head of the President's own
> >> denomination, wrote to Bush, calling his partisan use of religion
> >> blasphemy."
> >>
> >> The screen then cut to Joan Campbell, saying "We dare not ever use God to
> >> favor one group over another.  Down that road is the road of intolerance
> >> and injustice."
> >>
> >> Now, I have not heard everything Bush has said on the subject of religion,
> >> but none of what I heard is even remotely describable by Ms. Campbell's
> >> first sentence.  Based on what I have heard Bush say, Ms. Campbell is
> >> failing to distinguish between what is known as "hating the sin" and
> >> "hating the sinner."  Bush certainly comes down strongly in favor of
> >> traditional Christian values, but in interviews about how he would react
> >> if a grandson were gay, or a granddaughter having an abortion, he has
> >> shown again and again that he loves the sinner while hating the sin.
>
> >..but only if the sinner is a direct descendant.
>
> To those not familiar with Larry Margolis, he has a reputation on
> talk.abortion for dismissing an argument based on a source he does
> not like (including most if not all pro-life sources) as "speculation."

This is not true.  I point out the difference between facts and speculation.
To those not familiar with Peter Nyikos, he has a reputation on talk.abortion
for posting extremely bizarre claims as facts; when pressed, he admits that
it's speculation; when pressed further, he admits that it's completely
baseless.  For example, he claimed that abortionists are failing to
report cases of incest that they know of, and not being charged.  His
"evidence" turned out to be that he asked one lawyer, who didn't know of
any incest cases, and so Peter assumed the rest.  He has also speculated
that clinic bombings are done by clinic owners for insurance purposes
rather than by fanatic anti-abortionists (never mind that some of the
fanatics have been arrested and convicted), and that the fanatics are
not really anti-abortion - they just said they were in hopes of getting
a lighter sentence for bombing the abortion clinics.

> As you can see, however, Larry Margolis is quite willing to indulge
> in genuine speculation himself.

The interviews asked how he'd react to a grandson or granddaughter
(direct descendant).  We can see how he's screwing the rest of the
people.

> >> I should add that one thing I have not heard, but have read on USENET,
> >> is an account of Bush saying that he did not think atheists made good
> >> citizens.
>
> >He says he's not even sure they should be considered citizens; I don't
> >know where you got "good" from.  It seems pretty clear that he's talking
> >about *all* atheists.
>
> I agree that the passage supports the *all* part.

(Also that he just said "citizens", not "good citizens".)

> >> 1. I accuse Joan Campbell, and most of the dozens of Church leaders who
> >> wrote the letter, of having long ago given up whatever belief they
> >> may have had in a Creator of our physical universe.
> >>
> >> 2. I accuse Joan Campbell, and most of the dozens of Church leaders who
> >> wrote the letter, of having long ago given up whatever belief they
> >> may have had in personal survival after death.
> >>
> >> 3. I accuse Joan Campbell, and most of the dozens of Church leaders who
> >> wrote the letter, of having long ago given up whatever belief they
> >> may have had in a personal deity capable of directly intervening in
> >> human history.
>
> >I accuse Peter Nyikos of making the above accusations out of complete
> >ignorance about the people he is accusing.
>
> An accusation is not an indictment, much less a conviction.  I wanted to
> make these accusations in a timely fashion, and then if someone has
> evidence exonerating these people, it can be brought forward.

(That's another thing that Peter has a reputation for - stating things
as though they were facts, then, when it's pointed out that he's
totally incorrect, saying "Well, I was only asking a question.")

> "Complete ignorance" is a distortion.  I do not *know* these things about
> the clergymen or Joan Campbell in particular, but from what I say below,
> I do not believe most of them could have risen so high in their
> respective organizations if they espoused the three beliefs which I
> accuse them of having abandoned.

So you're claiming that it's not possible to become a "Church leader"
without abandoning the beliefs of the Church?

> >> I base these first three accusations on the history of
> >> Protestantism over most of our century.
>
> >What does that have to do with the personal beliefs of these people
> >and your knowledge thereof?
>
> See my last comment above.  Margolis has deleted what I said about
> that history, but my original post is still in my table of contents.

How does the history of Protestantism give you knowledge about the
personal beliefs of those you're accusing?

> >> Still I pressed him: how could he so flatly state that his belief
> >> corresponded to the truth?  Finally, he reluctantly admitted that of
> >> course no one could PROVE that there is no life after death, but if there
> >> is one "it will not be life as we know it."
> >>
> >> Again, I do not say there is anything reprehensible about the BELIEFS
> >> of Tillich, Robinson, or this Methodist minister.
> >>   I have entertained similar beliefs, on and off,
> >> over the past 27 years.  Only I am honest enough to call them by their proper
> >> names, atheism and agnosticism.
>
> >You mean, ignorant enough to label them improperly.
>
> The post was already a long one and I did not want to get into nitpicky
> distinctions.
>
> >  Atheism refers
> >to the belief in a god; it has nothing to do with a belief in an afterlife.
>
> This either/or thinking is typical of pro-choicers on talk.abortion.
> "Nothing to do with" is downright silly.

Why silly?  That's what the word means:
   atheism (n)
   DEFINITIONS:
   1a  disbelief in the existence of deity
   1b  the doctrine that there is no deity
   2   UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
   (c) G. & C. Merriam

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion