Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
BonosSaint said:
While there is danger (even evil) in the misuse or malevolent interpretation of scripture or other religious text, I can see no harm in 80's beliefs in him personally. From reading his posts over the months, I do not see him calling for a ban on teaching evolution in schools. I hear some support for civil unions for gays (if not religious marriage) (I support both). I see consistency in his being prolife and anti death penalty (even if it is not philosophical, but practical being that state screws up voluntarily or involuntarily so often). I see a person defending his beliefs, but I don't see him as a person dangerous to secular society. I have many disagreements with his beliefs, which I have voiced often enough. But I see no reason for him to come under personal attack. And if it is not meant that way, it appears that way. From all I can see, he does not appear to be a member of a church that is spewing hatefilled dogma from the pulpit. He does not appear to be a member of the POLITICAL religious right, which is dangerous.
what 80s has refused to acknowledge is that i don't think he's dangerous -- i've said, several times, that i don't think he's a fundamentalist, even by the terms of the definition that he himself laid out.
what i am talking about is know-nothing fundamentalism.
still, it's much easier for 80s to feel outrage to personalize the argument and then through anecdotal and personal testimony try and shoot it down. by refusing to keep things in the speculative, abstract, and theoretical, he personalizes it so that he can say, essentially, "well, i'm a fundamentalist and i'm not dangerous." and he's right. but that's also a great way to avoid the discussion and make an emotional point that's rather irrelevant for discussion.
i'll reiterate my main point again: when people take a book like The Bible, the Koran, or anything else, and view it as the primary source through which to understand the world -- from basic morality to hard science -- and refuse to mediate, to think critically, to even question what is written (even though it's a translated text written by men 2,000 years ago ... and, again, the idea that "god will get his message undersood" is bogus), then that is a DANGEROUS thing, and it is a danger that only religion can produce.
there are many people on this board who believe the Bible to be "true" (as opposed to factual ... while much of the Bible is, i understand, factually accurate, certainly not all of it is) who also don't view it as incompatible with modern knowledge or science. in fact, one should compliment the other in a sort of Jesuit ideal. what i do think we have, in all religions, and in the US it is most visible with elements of Christianity, is a willingness to return to the Middle Ages.
other than that, GREAT post. i generally agree with every word. i probably should have dropped this long ago, from the second 80s internalized the argument being put forward. but i suppose i do feel it is worthwhile to point out to the devout the potential for danger and destruction within any belief system rooted in absolutes.
Last edited: