From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:51:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.175614.28280@Csli.Stanford.EDU>, mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx) writes:
>
>Whoooooooa, horsie! To speak of "Christianity" as one entity is
>problematic, there being several thousand different Christian
>denominations in the United States alone.

Fine.  But the traits I'm refering to are, as far as I know, caused by
beliefs shared by all of them.  Or are their Christian sects that *don't*
believe that the bible is the word of God, that Jesus died for your sins,
that there's an afterlife, etc.?

>To attribute to every one of them by attributing to Christians *in general*
>(as you have done) guilt for the deeds of a small minority of those who stand
>under the Christian umbrella breeds not only ignorance, but the intolerance
>you so self-righteously denounce.

I haven't attributed the guilt to *Christians*, I've attributed it to
*Christianity*.  I feel pity for those sucked into religious dogma, but I don't
blame them for it.

>>Deny it all you want, but that won't stop the next holy war from happening.
>
>If it does, hopefully you'll take the time to look at who exactly is
>responsible and recognize that they themselves are *not* doing what
>they have committed to, rather than throwing all Christians into a
>black kettle and turning up the heat.

What are you saying?  That the Christian soldiers aren't to blame?  Or that
they really aren't Christians?  Or what?

>... You once again generalize to *all* of Christianity, failing to
>recognize differences not only in what is taught by individual
>Christian churches, but in the way the different members react to
>that.

I did not.  I never said *all* Christians exhibit those traits, just that a
significant number *do*, and I don't see much effort on the part of Christian
religions to correct such blatant non-Christian behavior.

>>Huh?  What's that got to do with the leap of faith, suspension of disbelief,
>>and subjugation of will required to be a Christian?
>
>Once again, you reveal your ignorance. Spend a decent amount of time
>learning Christ's teachings and you'll get a clue. 

Well, I was raised Methodist, and have been exposed to Christianity all my
life.  If I'm lacking a clue, why don't you just give it to me?  I'm not going
to run out and buy/study a bible just to satisfy you.

>Many churches (including mine) do excommunicate many of those "bad
>apples" -- if they're not willing to change their ways and try to be
>better.

Sure, the really flagrant cases, I suppose.  But you miss the point: many
people claim to be Christian, go to church regularly, etc., but constantly say
and do things in their daily lives that reflect either a total lack of
understanding of Christ's teachings or a total lack of committment to living
their lives consistently with them.  I suppose they're just poor sinners not
responsible for their actions...

>>It follows, then, that atheists are not accountable as a group since they
>>don't act as a group--they're merely a set of individuals with a common trait.
>>You can't blame them for the ills of any particular atheist any more than you
>>can blame redheads for any deed performed by a redhead.
>
>But your previous paragraph about beliefs playing a large role in
>determining behavior is a shoe atheists can wear, as well.

Wrong.  Atheists don't share a particular belief, they share a nonbelief.  This
is a current thread in alt.atheism.  Believing that God doesn't exist and not
believing that God exists are two different things.  E.g., to steal an example
from that thread:

bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart) writes:
>If I claim to have Elvis in my spare bedroom, would you consider
>yourself a "nonbeliever" or a "disbeliever?"  Or would you, in fact, be
>so gullible as to believe it on just my say-so?  Would you consider
>outright disbelief of such a fantastic claim to be "dogmatic" or
>"religious," or would it merely be sensible considering the facts and
>circumstances?

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush