From: Cory Przybyla (recherchetenet@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Jul 18 2002 - 16:59:55 MDT
> How would you fight against voluntarily spread memes
> without
> seriously threatening individual freedoms?
The idea here is to start up a small group that gets
right in the middle of the Religites propagandizing
and demonstrations and hands out information, and
spreads memes of the opposite sort. If even slightly
successful it possibly would threaten individual
freedoms in the same way that laws against child abuse
violate a parent's freedom to beat their child.
> I can say many things pro and con about religion but
> I don't
> think you can call religion, at least not without
> state power
> behind it, "mental terrorism". Please explain what
> you mean by
> this.
I used a general term 'organized religion' to avoid
making an already lengthy e-mail far more verbose
since after all I was mainly seeking information that
to analyze, and it was to my surprise that anyone even
read the post (of course the subject line helped).
What I am concerned about is almost all have state
power, or a similar control over a demographic,
community, or family. These are the ones that exhibit
mental terrorism of course. Since I'd never gain any
legislative influence or power with this, nor any
large following it would be a disservice to even
bother with anything but the rigid few. Particularly
born-again, moral majority catholics, Islam doesn't
seem to be around here much nor scientology. In a
hypothetic highly structured organization with mass
support of such ideas there would be limited power
alloted since, after all, the point of this is to
limit power. I was considering at the same time
trying to develop an idea that was against mental
terrorism (even mildly so) instead which would
encompass everything I seek to denounce in this, but
couldn't find any good approach to this.
> What is unwilling? I cannot step into your mind and
> force you
> to believe or disbelieve anything. I can present
> arguments and
> attempt to persuade you. Do you think that should
> somehow be
> prohibited if you disapprove of the ideas being
> proposed? Some
> people consider your own favorite ideas to be quite
> dangerous.
> Should you be prohibited to spread them?
Unwilling at one extreme is of course by threat of
violence...of course you still may not have changed
their mind yet have forced them to conform to your
credo. At a very mild level it's being cornered in a
mall and followed around being pressured with comments
like "if you don't act now you'll not be saved".
Suggesting ideas and trying to persuade wouldn't
necessarily fall under organized religion, nor the
slightly more specific definition of what I meant
presented above. If you along with a large group of
people tried to cram it at me, yes you should stop
regardless of my approval or not. To enforce this
would be not only impossible, but also foolish. To
educate people that this is wrong to do, would be
beneficial.
> No, it hasn't failed at all. The US, despite much
> highly
> publicized rhetoric, was not built on the basis of
> religion but
> was build on freedom of religious belief or
> disbelief and the
> separation between church and state. The US is one
> of the most
> religiously diverse countries, and generally
> peacefully so, on
> the planet. So on what grounds do you say it
> failed?
The history of it is irrelevant here, since I'm not
concerned with the foundational principles, but the
current repressive trends. I say it's failed,
although not completely, because any job you go to
(pending dress code) you can wear a "jesus saves"
t-shirt, but not one with a skull, or perhaps an
actual decent message. Because everyone I knew from
the south had horror stories of 'accidental' deaths,
or suicides of children who didn't confrom to the
town's religion. Because the laws are decided based
on moral codes which stem from religion...look into
interesting sex laws for one example (hint:
Virginia). It has continually gotten better through
most of this country's history, but with the current
state of politics and blind nationalism backing it, it
hangs in the balance. Which is why I want to do this
now...given a new president and national attitude, I
may cease to care.
> Considering that a large percentage of people in the
> US is
> agnostic/atheist who were raised under a particular
> relgious
> slant, I think you underrate the ability of people
> to go beyond
> childhood conditionings. On the other hand, I
> wonder if I would
> have fought so long and hard with making sense of
> spirituality/religion if I had not been so immersed
> into it
> growing up. Dunno.
Yeah ever the question of, would I have turned out
this right way, had it not been for the negative
influence, and reactionary behavior. But I think much
good can be shown for the elimination of other
'abuses'. I think there's a large portion of those
agnostic/athiests who grew up like that, that have
inner demons as a result, and are generally struggling
to find happiness...
> So, I can believe what I want but not group together
> with others
> who believe similarly or attempt to spread my
> beliefs? At least
> not about things that make you personally
> uncomfortable or that
> you disapprove of? Sorry, but that isn't freedom of
> any kind.
Ah, but of course there is no 'freedom' since every
action has consequences/results. Anyway, how I would
take away from 'your' freedom or anyone on the campus'
by doing this I wonder. Moreover I do tend to think
balance in the non-free issue is a good path. There's
an organization for almost every crackpot idea or
scheme, and good ones as well, yet for something which
there's plenty of evidence of the destructive effects
of, there seems to be none. You don't see this as a
problem? I do.
> State interference with peoples beliefs and right to
> associate
> and spread their beliefs is tyranny.
I went back through my original post, and the only
reference to the state came up as a semi-apology to
libertarians who I tend to agree most closely with.
Obvoiusly this would have no effect on the state
whether I wanted it to or not (save maybe to clamp
down...I hope not).
I've gone on far too long.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:33 MST