NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/21815

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ibmps2!kgnaix11!mjones
From: [e-mail] (Mike Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:20:28 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: IBM, Kingston NY
Lines: 55


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Edward Harbin) writes:
> >>On the other hand, in what non-Christian country would you choose to live?
> >How about in one of the many cultures that used to exist but have been
> >completly destroyed by Christian evangelism?
> >You see, Christianity has wiped out not just individuals, but entire cultures.
> By which you mean, you couldn't think of any in which you would choose to
> live.

Au contraire. I suspect that I could have been quite happy in any of several
of the civilizations that existed on the North American continent before the
Europeans arrived. Measured by the standards of their day, they weren't bad
places to live.

Today? Well, in many ways Israel would be a nice place to live, except for
the fundamentalists and the fact that people keep shooting at them, neither
of which seems directly connectd to their not being "a Christian nation". If
you can afford it (cf. Arthur C. Clarke), Sri Lanka doesn't seem like a
terrible place. Of course, if you can't afford it (cf. Harlem), the US isn't
such a great place in many ways, either. How about Japan? Many parts of
Thailand are quite nice, I hear.

This is, of course, ignoring the fact that the US is a non-Christian nation
in every way other than that a majority of the population is some flavor of
Christian, and even then no single denomination approaches a majority.
Canada is much the same way.

> >>This century has tried several experiments in explicitly anti-religious
> >>statecraft
> >Hmmm.  Here once again we see the collossal ignorance and arrogance of a
> >typical Christian:  I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you that...
   [stuff deleted, not by me]
> I'll accept your humility and openness as a model. Of some sort. Put it
> this way, if you were in charge, I suspect the difference between anti-
> and a- religious would be negligible. A little too much heat here for mere
> neutrality.

Ha. He's not reacting to religion, but to your arrogance, which is presented
in the context of your religious beliefs. The fact that you appear to be
proud of your ignorance of the non-Christian world is, sadly, all too
typical. And no, before you start whining about me, I'm not anti-religious
at all. In fact, I'm a Southern Baptist by heritage (and baptism). I
certainly agree with Carl (whose attribution you dropped) that the public
attitudes of far too many self-proclaimed Christians are marked by the
combination of ignorance and arrogance, and that they have the peculiar
attitude that if everything isn't arranged in their favor (prayer in
schools, Nativity scenes on public property, creationism in science
classes), then they're being persecuted. In other words, I don't think it's
Carl here who's showing a lack of neutrality.

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  [e-mail]

This is the first age that's paid much attention to the future, which is a
little ironic since we may not have one.
    - Arthur C. Clarke