Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wednesday, 30 Dec 1992 16:36:54 CST
From: <U19807@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
 <1992Dec27.235003.4413@rosevax.rosemount.com>
 <eharbin.725547983@convex.convex.com>

In article <eharbin.725547983@convex.convex.com>, eharbin@convex.com (Edward
Harbin) says:
>
>On the other hand, in what non-Christian country would you choose to live?

Japan,perhaps?

>This century has tried several experiments in explicitly anti-religious
>statecraft - and the body count has been stupendous.

It depends,of course,on what you call "anti-religious statecraft". Since
Kemal Ataturk was responsible for overturning the remnants of the Muslim
Ottoman Empire when he founded the Republic of Turkey in the 1920's,he
outlawed many Muslim religious restrictions on everyday life (such as women
wearing veils,etc.) and imported many European legal traditions (such as
the codification of law _a_la_ France,etc.) which went against the traditional
Islam-based Ottoman system. Like it or not,he effectively dragged Turkey into
the 20th Century. Care to tell us how this-or any other-form of "anti-religious
statecraft" was so horrible?

>In the enlightened
>regimes
>of Hitler and Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot you have exemplars of what you seek;
>and aren't you proud?

What a ridiculous statement. Hitler and Stalin might have come to power in
(formerly) predominantly Christian societies,but how can you (tacitly)
assume that Stalin and Pol Pot came to power and overthrew "Christian" regimes
when neither China or Cambodia were predominantly Christian in the first place?

>Probably not, for it's unlikely that you hold the
>non-religious to the same standards you reserve for the religious,

If you'd cease cramming your words in the mouths of your opponents,
you'd realize that no one on this newsgroup has stated anything
of the sort concerning this thread.

Incidentally,Mr. Harbin,could you define "religious" for us,especially as it
applies to non-monotheistic religions?

>or identify
>yourself with the fruits of that point of view.

Another ridiculous assumption on your part....

>It was in Christian societies that both modern science and
>liberal democracy evolved.

So? Many doctrines of the Enlightenment period (such as deism or other forms
of religious skepticism) contradicted traditional Christian thought. Your
attempts to toss such uncritical assumptions around like you've been doing
in this post would be suspicious if it wasn't so illogical.

>This was not accidental.

It's called "historical development", Mr. Harbin,and I continue to assert that
Enlightenment philosophy had less to do with traditional Christian philosophy
than you think.

>Nor is it accidental that
>wherever you find human suffering, Christians are in the forefront with aid
>aid and comfort.

Ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition,Mr. Harbin? Or the Thirty Years' War?
are these little examples of (religious) man's inhumanity to man somehow
exempt from your above statement because were done in the name of eradication
of "heretical" Christian sects or non-Christian religions?

>The Christian ethos has much of which to be proud.

In some cases,yes,but your uncritical assumptions don't do those cases
proper justice by any stretch of the imagination.

      ** Chris Krolczyk,esq.  * DISCLAIMER: My opinions are in **
      ** Agnostic-at-Large    * no way endorsed by the Univer- **
      ** U19807@UICVM.BITNET  * sity of Illinois at Chicago.   **
      ** u19807@uicvm.uic.edu * So much for frivolous lawsuits.**
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21628 sci.med:23011