From: fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Date: 26 Aug 92 09:45:32 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jacksonk@gehrig.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson) writes:
>(2) if we accept the notion that the
>Christian God is perceived as having a "genocidal and murderous streak",
>what does that say of the mortals who follow this god?

We may be getting somewhere. If I said I was a huge fan of Saddam
Hussein, would you be 

A) Particularly impressed by my choice of who to admire

B) Wonder whether it was appropriate to admire a murderous bastard

C) Question my sanity



>Surely interpreting
>this as justifying their own murdering and genocidal actions is not
>automatic

Logically no. But sadly logic seems to play very little part in many
folks thinking. However, if someone were an admirer of someone who was
partial to the odd genocide and a fair bit of murder, their sense of
morality would be under question to say the least.

, i.e. only God has the power to do it, and regardless runs
>completely contrary to the "love thy enemy", "turn the other cheek", etc.
>philosophy. 

Well, yes. It's a case of "Do as I say, not as I do." God, if the Bible
is to be believed is the Universe's numero uno Hypocrite.

>If someone who claims to be Christian but disregards these
>rules, surely you cannot say that that persons religion caused him/her to
>commit some attrocity;

There are injunctions in the Bible to kill people as has already been
discussed here. Certainly there are also injunctions against killing
people. The Bible is inconsistent and folks maybe just believe what they
figure is best. You believe folks shouldn't kill in the name of religion
and various Church Leaders have believed that they damn well ought to do
just that.

> (3) the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient God who
>creates a universe and life forms in this universe being guilty of genocide
>or murder is quite silly as this God would have ultimate control over these
>life forms, as well as responsibility for them (to whom? a bit technical
>and overly metaphysical for me) and would be able to choose whether a
>person dies of old age or through some "natural" disaster. 

Killing someone is killing someone whether you have responsibility for
them or not. Infanticide is a crime for instance despite the fact that
it might be your own baby and you'd be responsible for it. In fact, if
you are responsible for someone's welfare and you kill them, it betrays
an awesome betrayal and lack of the responsibility which has been
entrusted to you.

>Besides, even
>if this God were "guilty", what are you going to do about it?

Well, without identifying the source (if it exists :-) and having the
weaponry to combat the threat. Nothing. Still, if I did believe in this
threat, I wouldn't regard craven collaboration as an option. I guess I
just have moral scruples about things like genocide.

>Religious people,
>on the other hand, don't tend to be this way any more than the human race
>in general -- hence their religion doesn't cause them to do things, rather
>their human nature.  They may justify acts by rationalizing some religious
>reason, but this is purely cosmetic.  It is also part of human nature to be
>bigots against those groups we don't belong to -- like a racial group, sex
>group, or religious group.

Except that no-one expects someone's race to tell them to act in a
certain way. Ideology and religion does behave in this way.

What you seem to be saying in the above is that despite their religion,
religious folks behave no better than anyone else. Why therefore, *have*
the religion?


> Keith Jackson == jacksonk@cs.rpi.edu      |O

FoFP