Re: virus: "... faith is one of the world's great evils"

Ken Pantheists (
Thu, 13 Mar 1997 01:28:29 -0700

anonymous wrote:

> [anonymous] How tolerant of you. Do you commonly argue by insult?

No. I don't commonly argue by insult. But your position has spurred an
uncharacteristic "directness" in me.

> [anonymous] My only point is that the statement in the subject line is wrong. Are you objecting to my citing historical events?

No I am objecting to your misapprehension of historical events.

> How then can you complain about belief without evidence when you
> resent my use of evidence. What do you require? Agreement?

I have not complined about anything other than your propensity to
collapse events with opinion, and anachronisms. The effect is

> [anonymous] What can be more general than the beginning of this string? Offensive how? Define determinant.

A determinant is a determining factor or principle.

You wrote in a previous post....

Stalin and =
Mao, both began with the intent to stamp out religion, and the masses =
found that worship of their atheist tyrants became the only acceptable =
expression of religious belief. This speaks more to the possible genetic
predisposition to some kind of religious belief than to Stalin's or =
Mao's respect for it.

Me: I would say that being the subject of a police state is incentive
enough. In an environment such as an abusive state, I would assume that
the first genetic predispositions that come into play are simply, the
desire for safety and to stay alive. I have heard of studies that delve
into the relationship between the abusive state and the individual and
liken it to the abusive parent syndrome in which the child/subject
enters a jungian scapegoat complex which in turn engenders a fetish-like
relationship to power. Genetic predisposition to having "someone" as a
god (which is in my opinion the antithesis of spirituality) does not do
any service to the subjects of such states, neither does it illuminate
anything about this unique relationship.

You wrote in another post:
Tyrants commonly profess to be certain they are in the right. This is =
because few become tyrants without demonstrating political skills, and =
it is a common political skill to appear certain of the things one is =
attempting to persuade others.

I am of the opinion that tyrants are tyrants because of their *lack* of
political skill. Otherwise they woulldn't be tyrants, they'd be reagan.

You also state:
The Spanish Inquisition was targeted primarily against =
Conversos or Jews who had converted to Christianity who were accused of
being Judaizers or crypto-Jews.

Which leads me to wonder why you include this distinction. Do you mean
to say that "it wasn't so bad, it was mostly the jews that got it?"
Whivh, by the way is not true.
You say:
The King of Spain when asked about the =
inquisition responded that he didn't care for it, but the Spaniards =
wanted it.

The Spanish Inquisition was an instrument of the Spanish state. (whether
known to the king or not) Read the trials of the Lutherans in Seville,
the Lutherans of Valladolid as well as the several "accquisitions" by
the Spanish state of properties owned by women whose men had perished in
the crusades (which, contrary to your interpretation, were incited as
many times to alleviate tensions in the nation states as not)

You: This rumor is best understood in =
light of the Christian population's resentment of their Muslim rulers =
and an all too human attempt to retaliate against their weaker ally =
however innocent or involuntary that ally may have been.

Me: What you cite as an "all too human response" is a generalization of
a very sophisticated and militant political text. I find it distressing
that you don't see it that way. I have taken your comment out of
context, correct if I am wrong in saying that the gist of your post was
to in some way pardon the response as human? -- and in defense of
religion?? This shoulder shrugging and saying "who could blame them?" is
... just.... wrong.

> [anonymous] Your criticism is too general to make response possible.

I hope I have sharpened the focus of some of my objections with this

> Must you rely on such a vague response to defeat me.

My purpose was not to defeat you. I just wanted to figure out where you
were coming from.

  Ken Pantheists