On 26 March 2002 8:00 AM, "Jon Glass" <jonglass_at_mac.com> wrote:
> force. Self control is essential to self-government. (get it?) Morality and
> religion are essential elements of self-control. An irreligious and immoral
> person has no self-restraint, and lacks a motive to self restraint. A people
Morals--gotta have 'em! If you get them from your religion, that's fine. As you
say, "an irreligious AND immoral person" (since one can certainly be religious
and immoral, or non-religious and moral).
> the contrary. Freedom is not about license to do anything you want, whenever
> you want, but about taking responsibility for your own actions, and being
Sounds good to me. (See "proselytize" below.)
> The sad truth is, that most people who disapprove of religion are really
> opposed to any moral restraint. This is what they are really opposed to.
This is such a silly statement I'll assume it was written in the heat of the
moment. (And I don't see anything in Jeremy's post that is "disapproving of
> this excess. Unfortunately, it seems that in today's society, even the moral
> framework upon which society is based, even when individuals didn't, is
> crumbling. If so, where does that leave our society? Sure, those that don't
Often seems that way to me as well, but I suspect seeing the "downfall of
civilization" is a common reaction as we get older!
> There is also another item to consider. By telling someone that they cannot
> "proselytize," you are restricting their freedom, and are becoming a tyrant
> in a different way, but a tyrant nonetheless. In the end, you become the
Nah, by asking someone not to proselytize, you're just asking them to exhibit
some manners. (It's not the downfall of civilization -- or of this mail list --
it's just a little rude.) You can write an article, publish a book, post to your
Web site, or stand on a street corner and shout 'till your blue in the face.
Fine. But please don't stand on my front porch and do it, and don't do it in a
discussion group that is not interested in your personal conception of and
relationship to some deity. In other words, it's asking for some self-control
and self-restraint (see above) beyond the desire for individual attention and/or
> twist their own words out of context, or try to make them say something they
> aren't saying. :-) That is why I quote them....
Quite selectively, but that's o.k. because YOU have the correct hermeneutic. :-)
-- Read the List FAQ/Etiquette: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html Read the Newton FAQ: http://www.guns-media.com/mirrors/newton/faq/ This is the NewtonTalk mailing list - http://www.newtontalk.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 14:03:36 EST