[Peace-discuss] RE: Sinclair Lewis

Fri Feb 17 14:55:53 CST 2006

To everyone interested in this nonsense by Phil, just reread what he  
had written, and to which I responded, startled; I emphasize his  
pertinent words in italics and red:

> "... 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,(sic) drugs--i. e. NORML, denial of  
> God), good."

I won't comment on the abortion part, but it is evidently evil to  
Phil if someone doesn't believe in (his) god, whatever that is.  
Fundamentalism in our own back yard. The whole sentence smacks of  
craziness.

--mkb

On Feb 17, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Phil Stinard wrote:

>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20060217/22365ee4/attachment.htm