NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/atheism/24784

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-02 | 3.5 KB

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24784 talk.religion.misc:24956 alt.pagan:14837
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!panix!mls
From: [e-mail] (Michael Siemon)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: did I like miss your point?
Summary: atheistic fanatics?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Jan 93 19:46:10 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Lines: 59

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Jon Livesey) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:

>|> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(markbr) writes...

and my attribution chain is sufficiently complex that I will leave
the original question anonymous...

>|> >Huh? How many "fanatic atheists" have *you* *personally* ever met?
>|> >I sure don't know anyone that would qualify as one: certainly none
>|> >of them that I've know would think in terms of imposing their will
>|> >on the believers, even if they did think the believers were deluded
>|> >or stupid. I *sure* have known *plenty* of fanatic believers, who
>|> >would impose their will on me, if they could.

>|> Does the name Madeleine Murray O'Hare ring any bells?

>I must have missed something.   In what way is Madeleine
>Murray O'Hare "imposing her will on the believers?"

Now, now, Jon -- that is assuming the respondent who named Ms. O'Hair
accepted the (rather unusual) definition that "fanatics" are those
who "think of imposing their will on" others.  That can be one sign
of fanaticism, but more generally the term seems to me to apply to
anyone who operates under some idee fixe that overwhelms what most
people take to be reasonable proportions.

For what it's worth, I don't have any idea whether Ms. O'Hair is a
fanatic -- certainly it is NOT fanaticism in my estimate to have taken
the issue of religious freedom (read as including freedom FROM religion)
to the Supreme Court.  And in any case, that campaign was not one of
coercing others, except insofar as "coercion" is used in upholding the
Constitution.  On the other side, I think a very good case could be
made that the Pope *is* desirous of imposing his will on others --
non-believers and non-Catholics as well as "his" own "flock" -- but
is not a "fanatic" in the standard usage of that word.

Yes, there are far more fanatics, in the usual acceptation, amongst
religious people (particularly in forcefully evangelizing or "cultic"
communities) than amongst the irreligious, to the best of my knowledge
or experience of both kinds.  That said, I know as few fanatics among
my Christian (and Muslim and Jewish and Hindu and Buddhist) aquaintences
(including some groups you'd think might be at "risk" here, like xtian
fundamentalists) as among the atheistic ones.  The net seems to bring
forth a constant crop of fundigelicals who look for all the world like
fanatics; but it also has its knee-jerkers who at the slightest casual
positive mention of Christianity go into a frothing tirade based on
bad history and worse sociology.  If I had to judge from the net,
there are at least a FEW atheistic fanatics to balance the crusading
hordes of Christian ones :-)
--
Michael L. Siemon    "We honour founders of these starving cities
[e-mail]         Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
             They built by rivers and at night the water
             Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."