From: jacksonk@gehrig.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson)
Subject: Re: Anti-religious fanatics (Was Re: School Choice )
Organization: Ryttsalees Peninulhtes Iccnorite
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:06:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.190539.20845@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug17180945@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

>>	However, let's continue in this direction: socialism, as
>>	religion, has killed more than all previous religious
>>	crusades.

>>	* The 1920's purges of "kulaks" in the USSR
>>	* The 1930's purge of the Communist Party of the USSR
>>	* The 1930's purge of Communists by the NSDAP in Germany
>>	* The 1930's purge of the Army in the USSR
>>	* War in Europe from 1939 to 1945, instigated by Socialists,
>>	  continued by Socialists.

>Now this is interesting.  It should be noted that "socialism" as
>practiced by the CPSU (Communist Party, Soviet Union) has never been
>the sole example of international socialism.  In fact, much of the 
>international socialist movement has consistently rejected the practices
>Of the CPSU.

Hmm, like the socialists in China who run over students in tanks, or the
socialists in Cambodia who killed huge numbers of people, or the socialists
. . .

>You obviously have little understanding of the political
>conflicts that have characterized the international socialist movement
>since the early 19th century.

Well, since you seem to want to ignore the facts you obviously have little
understanding yourself.

>Even worse, to lump the Nazis in as examples of socialists simply because
>it was appropriated by the NSDAP as part of the name indicates a woeful
>ignorance of European history.  

>>	* The killing in Cambodia

>>	And so forth and so on. Now, it will be argued that
>>	"those actions weren't carried on by REAL socialists"....
>>	but that's the same argument as "the crusades weren't
>>	carried on by REAL christians".

>This sort of "so's your mother" argument is both fallacious and
>non-productive.  To imply that "socialism" prompted the atrocities 
>cited, you are obligated to indicate what aspect of the ideology 
>is the basis of the behavior cited.  All you have done is to 
>select atrocities committed by groups who called themselves "socialist."

>At least the original poster indicated that Christian atrocities resulted
>from a conception of a God with a "genocidal and murderous streak."  While
>that's an oversimplified (and IMHO ultimately flawed) analysis.  It 
>at least suggests a familiarity with Christian ideology (though a 
>partial familiarity, to say the least.)  Your post suggests no equivalent
>understanding of socialist ideology.

This is complete hogwash!  Your acrobatic feats of logic astound me!  OK,
(1) socialism/communism/Marxism/Maoism/etc. as a system of government is
unnatural and requires brutal repressive force to implement total control
over an economy (as opposed to the progressively socialistic measures
introduced in most democracies), hence this is the aspect of the ideology
that is the basis for the behavior; (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?  Surely interpreting
this as justifying their own murdering and genocidal actions is not
automatic, 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.  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; (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.  Besides, even
if this God were "guilty", what are you going to do about it? (4) The post
shows a clear understanding of the socialist ideology because of [1] above,
they are bound to be repressive and Nosy has shown just a few of their
worst actions as demonstrating their true nature.  In a democratic society,
socialist ideas can be introduced gradually because fast change would cause
riots and even uprisings -- imagine being told tomorrow that the government
owns everything of yours and is going to take all but a little bit to
redistribute to those less fortunate than you who you've been exploiting
all your life (obviously, since you're not poor.)

In any event, the socialists/communists/Marxists/etc. have been entirely
too consistent in their brutal repression this century.  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.
-- 
            ^  >
            O o                                                 \_O
           >=-=<        Keith Jackson == jacksonk@cs.rpi.edu      |O
             U                                                  _/ \_