From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Feb 21 2004 - 03:09:08 GMT
Platt, Steve and all bible thumpin' hicks:
Platt said:
To label Christians as "idiots" because they doubt the Darwin story of
evolution appears to me to demonize a large segment of the population.
I'm surprised by your insensitivity. I'm sure you wouldn't like to have
your concepts called "idiotic." ...that doesn't give you the right to
verbally abuse others who hold different beliefs. Where is the hallowed
"sensitivity" we hear so much about that supposedly occupies the moral high
ground? ...Hardly an expression of tolerance and inclusiveness.
dmb says:
Sensitivity? Tolerance and inclusiveness? The high moral ground? Oh, did I
say "childish and idiotic"? Sorry, what I should have said was hopelessly
stupid, evil, ignorant, uneducated, ultra-right-wing, fanatical, vicious
bigoted hillbillies. I should have said all that, but someone beat me to
it....
"That was entirely within one code - the social code. Phaedrus thought that
code was good enough as far as it went, but it really didn't go anywhere. It
didn't know its origins and it didn't know its own destinations, and not
knowing them it had to be exactly what it was: hopelessly static, hopelessly
stupid, a form of evil in itself. Evil. ..If he'd called it that 150 years
ago he might have gotten himself into some real trouble. ..But today its
hardly a risk. Its more a cheap shot.Everybody thinks those Victorian moral
codes are stupid and evil, or old-fashioned at least, except maybe for a few
religious fundamentalists and ultra-right-wingers and ignorant uneducated
people like platt." LILA end of ch 13
"It was this issue of intellect vs society that made the Scopes trial of
1925 such a journalistic sensation. In that trial a Tennessee schoolteacher,
John Scopes, was chaged with illegally teaching Darwinian evoluion. ...But
in 1925 his lawyer, Clarence Darrow was just taking easy shot at a toothless
tiger. Only religious fanatics and ignorant Tennessee hillbillies opposed
the teaching of evolution. ...Church bigots, pillars of society who for
centuries had viciously attacked and defamed intellectuals who disagreed
with them, were now getting some of it back." LILA ch 22
dmb continues:
My point here is NOT that its sometimes appropriate to use harsh language,
although that's true enough. My point is that this is no mere name calling.
There is a reason Pirsig views the beliefs of religious fanatics as stupid
and evil. He'trying to say something substantial and so was I. So, please
Platt, rather than amuse us with phony PC indignation why not address the
actual issues? Why not explain why its stupid and evil? Or why you think its
smart and good? Why strike a silly pose when you can take the dabate
seriously?
Thanks,
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 21 2004 - 03:13:07 GMT