From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL (and dozens of others)
Date: 13 Sep 92 15:45:34 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <nyikos.716340103@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
> "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.

> 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.  While this can easily be taken to be an exception to what
> I have said, I would like to hear more about what he understands by
> "a good citizen" and also whether he was making a blanket statement
> about atheists in general.

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.  From the alt.atheism FAQ:

------ begin excerpt --------------------------------------------------------

"Did George Bush really say that atheists should not be considered citizens?"

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert
Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27, 1988.
The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal
disaster relief for Illinois.  The discussion turned to the presidential
primary:

     RS: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"

     GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community.  Faith in
         God is important to me."

     RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of
         Americans who are atheists?"

     GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens,
         nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under
         God."

     RS: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation
         of state and church?"

     GB: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state.  I'm just not
         very high on atheists."

UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were
still angry over the remarks.

The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27,
1989.  It can also be found in "Free Enquiry" magazine, Fall 1988 issue,
Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.

------ end excerpt ----------------------------------------------------------

> At any rate, all this pales in comparison with the use of "BLASPHEMY"
> as a means of using `God' to favor Bill Clinton over George Bush.

I agree that saying "God" favored Clinton over Bush would not constitute
blasphemy, but I don't think that's what Bush was saying.  :-)

> 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.

> I have no doubt that they are sincere in their
> disbelief, and because of the way they privately redefine the words "God",
> "life after death", and a host of other concepts that seem perfectly
> straightforward to simpler people,

I claim that Peter Nyikos has no knowledge about whether or not these
people "redefine" religious concepts (and of being an excessively simple
person).

> 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?

> 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.  Atheism refers
to the belief in a god; it has nothing to do with a belief in an afterlife.
You appear to be redefining atheism to mean the disbelief in the Christian
version of a Supreme Being, and agnosticism as uncertainty regarding the
Christian god(s) and Christian concept of an afterlife.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)