[Peace-discuss] RE: Sinclair Lewis

[Phil Stinard]

>Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:19:13 -0600
>From: Bob Illyes <illyes at uiuc.edu>
>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Sinclair Lewis
>To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20060216174758.0215eb40 at express.cites.uiuc.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>Thanks for the Sinclair Lewis quote, Chuck. A person who claims
>that folks who disagree with him are not merely wrong, but evil,
>is a according to my dictionary bigot. A fascist claims that if
>we don't all stick together, we'll sink, and therefore dissent
>is not merely wrong but evil. The distinction between these two
>types of persons is not very evident to me.
>
>Bob

Hi Bob,

Your explanation helps me understand the following bit of "fan mail" that I 
received from a "tolerant" AWARE member a month ago concerning AWARE's 
"Church presence":

---------------------------

Phil seems to have gone off the edge, and I don't think his curious  
(paranoid?) tirade is worthy of a reply.  It is sadly extreme in the  most 
retrograde, narrow-minded, and willfully ignorant sense. To me it seems 
disturbed. He is revealed by his  astounding statement:

"... it looks like you're trying to make what is good (celibacy, marriage, 
monogamy, morality, worship of God), evil, and what is evil (abortion, 
immorality, drugs--i. e. NORML, denial of God), good."

Will Phil soon be telling us about "intelligent design", or that the world 
was created by his God 6000 year ago? How to reason with folks like that is 
beyond me. The schools have failed.  I hope he'll have another rebirth.

----------------------------

I believe that our "tolerant" and "enlightened" atheist friend is confused 
about the difference between religious teachings and personal preferences.  
I don't judge between good and evil, but I do accept what the Bible has to 
say about it.  The quote about good and evil (less my embellishments) is 
from Isaiah 5:20:

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light 
and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."

This verse was expounded upon by John Wesley in his commentary on the Sermon 
on the Mount:

"What heightens the difficulty still more is, that they are not the rude and 
senseless part of mankind, at least not these alone, who set us the example, 
who throng the downward way, but the polite, the well-bred, the genteel, the 
wise, the men who understand the world, the men of knowledge, of deep and 
various learning, the rational, the eloquent! These are all, or nearly all, 
against us. And how shall we stand against these? Do not their tongues drop 
manna; and have they not learned all the arts of soft persuasion? -- And of 
reasoning too; for these are versed in all controversies, and strife of 
words. It is therefore a small thing with them to prove, that the way is 
right, because it is broad; that he who follows a multitude cannot do evil, 
but only he who will not follow them; that your way must be wrong, because 
it is narrow, and because there are so few that find it. These will make it 
clear to a demonstration, that evil is good, and good is evil; that the way 
of holiness is the way of destruction, and the way of the world the only way 
to heaven."

I really like the part, "they are not the rude and senseless part of 
mankind... who throng the downward way, but the polite, the well-bred, the 
genteel, the wise, the men who understand the world, the men of knowledge, 
of deep and various learning, the rational, the eloquent!"  But, by your 
definition, the founder of the Methodist Church is a screaming bigot.  
You're free to believe that, Bob, but by your reasoning, ALL religious 
beliefs that deal with good and evil are bigoted, and people who quote such 
beliefs in arguments are bigots.  I just want to be sure that's what you're 
saying.

Now let's look at dictionary definitions (taken from dictionary.com for ease 
of cut and paste):

bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from 
his own

fas·cism:  1. (a) A system of government marked by centralization of 
authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of 
the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of 
belligerent nationalism and racism.

              (b)A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating 
such a system of government.

           2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Note the difference between bigot and fascist.  I'd be cautious before I 
started throwing around labels.  That's what people start doing when they've 
run out of arguments.

--Phil