[Peace-discuss] RE: Sinclair Lewis

Fri Feb 17 15:42:28 CST 2006

Thanks once again, Mort, for proving to us your intolerance of others' 
religious beliefs.  It surprises me, though, that you're hung up on the word 
"evil."  Are you an atheist who believes in evil, and if so, what are your 
standards?  This is a point that I was trying to make with Bob.

--Phil

PS -- Does it give you satisfaction to label those you disagree with as 
"crazy"?

>From: "Morton K. Brussel" <brussel at uiuc.edu>
>To: Phil Stinard <pstinard at hotmail.com>
>CC: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] RE: Sinclair Lewis
>Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 14:55:53 -0600
>
>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
>