From: me@nospam.com   
      
   On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:53:51 +0100, ralph   
    wrote:   
      
   >In message , Ray Wesley   
   >Kinserlow Jr.  writes   
   >>   
   >>I don't think we should "exploit" it.  Bringing Humanism to the   
   >>religiously oppressed isn't a part of my agenda.  If you ask me what I   
   >>believe I will tell you what and how, otherwise, I will let you go your   
   >>way.  I consider my agnostic humanism a gift from myself to myself, and   
   >>it is up to each individual to find his or her own path. Since I   
   >>believe the real strength of a civilization, socially and biologically,   
   >>is diversity, I am gratified, not threatened, there are people   
   >>different from myself in my civilization.  I think we should try to win   
   >>the battles one at a time and not worry about winning the war.  Evil   
   >>should be opposed in specific instances, not railed against in generalities.   
   >   
   >I have a lot of sympathy for your point of view, Ray, but there is a   
   >limit to the diversity which I welcome. I would discourage anyone who   
   >cannot tolerate the existence of others, for whatever reason. This is   
   >the old dilemma: freedom for the individual cannot be absolute, since   
   >there are those who wish to restrict the freedom of others. Society is   
   >generally allowed to restrict *their* freedom.   
   >   
   >I also agree that destroying someone's faith by persuading them to a   
   >humanist viewpoint is dangerous; much better that they discover the   
   >truth for themselves. But by "exploit" I really had in mind the alliance   
   >of humanists firstly to acknowledge each other's (surprising) existence,   
   >and then using our numbers to influence policies. Most policies in most   
   >countries today acknowledge the existence of established religions, and   
   >bow to some extent in their direction. I know of no official policy that   
   >bows in any extent in our direction.   
   >   
   >I would, of course, be delighted to hear of examples that prove me   
   >wrong!   
      
   I think one should make a distinction between diversity of belief and   
   diversity of action.  Just because I think some scumbag deserves to   
   die doesn't mean I'm going to murder him to satisfy my belief.  I   
   admit strongly held beliefs can be dangerous but I feel we must take   
   the gamble of allowing freedom of belief absolutely and consequent   
   freedom of expression with some notable exceptions. I would think any   
   expression or speech which leads directly to the real harm of other   
   people should be prohibited.  Even so we must take care to hold the   
   reins loosely.  Here in America, Nazis can preach in the streets as   
   long as they donnot advocate crime or incite to riot..  We should be   
   proud of that fact.  It is the correct way to deal with someone who   
   has a repugnant belief system.  We even have to take the chance that   
   some people might be swayed by such venom.  To some fundamentalists, I   
   am one of those people with an undesirable, repugnant belief system.   
   In my free society, I can preach Humanism on the streets and the law   
   forces the fundamentalist to respect my right to speak.  Today, in my   
   city, the pro-lifers are demonstrating in the streets to stop   
   abortions at a clinic.  It is a complex interplay of law and morals.   
   This is how a society changes.  It is the eternal conflict between   
   those who believe and those who do not believe that yields progress.   
   Someday abortion clinics may be as sacrosanct as military bases as far   
   as allowing demonstrations near or on their location.  I hope that day   
   is not far off but I am sure it won't happen without considerable   
   conflict.  Any civilization that doesn't allow diversity of belief to   
   flourish and with it limited diversity of expression cannot change and   
   is doomed.   
      
   I don't feel deprived because my government recognizes established   
   religions.  As long as our leaders recognize the absolute necessity of   
   separation of church and state then I'm not going to quibble that the   
   legislators open their proceedings with a prayer if they are all   
   theists which they likely are.  I am going to holler when they try to   
   pass off that intelligent design crap as science(using the term   
   loosely) worthy of being taught in the public schools.  That is a   
   fight which matters.   
      
   While it is possible that a civilization can be brought down by wrong   
   choices, it is certain to perish if it allows none but government   
   sanctioned choices.   
      
      
   Ray Wesley Kinserlow Jr.   
   Lubbock, Texas   
   rkinserlow at cox dot net   
   homepage: www.members.cox.net/rkinserlow   
   blog: http://360.yahoo.com/kinserlow   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)