Meic to Rigor, 4-12-98:
-----------------------
MR:
-I wonder if anything has caused more psychological damage to
-humans than pseudo concepts such as "perfect", "omnipotent",
-"omniscient", and other poorly defined ideas which are stretched
-to the point of being ridiculous.  My ex girlfriend seemed to be
-damaged by such ideas, and I wasn't a good enough therapist to
-help her dispose of these notions, which contributed to our
-breakup
-
-I'm thinking of filing a class action lawsuit against western
-religions for all the bullcrap they've been putting in peoples'
-brains.  Do you guys think I have a chance of winning
>Sorry  to  say,  but  no.  Not because of any failing that you may
>have, but because  one  person  cannot  legally  stand  against  a
>religion  and  win...   religions  are  too  powerful.   Know why?
>Because the  members  of  those  religions  are  members  of  your
>government,  law  enforcement,  your schools, your favorite corner
>store, gas station.  They write the laws, amend them, enforce them
>and they are the judges that decide if those laws they  write  are
>broken.   But, keep up your own individuality, if for nothing else
>but to spite them.
Are  you  suggesting  here  that  the  American  constitution  has
nothing  to  say  here?   Your  notion  that  religions  are  "too
powerful" suggests that the result  would  be  different  if  they
were  not  so  powerful--say, if all the judges were atheists, and
religions  existed  only  in  the  backwoods.
I really doubt that the  unwinnable  nature  of  Rigor's  proposed
lawsuit  has  anything  to  do  with  the  power  distribution  of
religious and non-religious groups.
Although it is true  that  the  Free  Exercise  and  Establishment
clauses of the Constitution were originally put there by Baptists,
Methodists  and  American Protestant Episcopalians, I really doubt
that, all other things being equal, those clauses would have  read
any  differently  if  they  had  been put into the Constitution by
atheists and agnostics.
It is well to remember that some of  the  strongest  defenders  of
those  clauses  in  recent  decades,  defenders who have won suits
based on them all the way up to and including the Supreme Court of
the United States, have been  atheists,  agnostics,  Jews,  and  a
whole  range  of  others  who were never, by similarity of belief,
involved in the formation or amendment of the Constitution.
Thus,  I  do  not  think  the  nonwinnable  character  of  Rigor's
proposed lawsuit has anything  at  all  to  do  with  sociological
power factors.
The narrow issue about Rigor's  question  is  about  the  existing
state  of constitutional law in the United States.  And that issue
has already been dealt with  and  apparently  settled:  Under  the
existing consitution, Rigor's lawsuit would almost certainly fail.
But the broader issue is rooted  even  more  firmly  on  far  more
general  considerations,  such  as,  in a generally democratic and
secular society, whether changing the Religion Clauses would  ever
be supported by a population differently composed.
I  highly  doubt that there would be any appreciable support among
the non-religious today for changing the Religion Clauses  of  the
Constitution.  Thus I doubt that there is any basis at all for the
supposition that, if organised religion were less powerful than it
is today, there would be any political tendency to amend or repeal
those clauses.
Bob
Hello Day,
  [DB is apparently quoting Seneca]
-> "Philosophy is not a theory for popular acceptance and designed for
-> show; it is not in words, but in deeds.  It is not employed
-> counsel, and this can only be sought for in philosophy.  Whether fate
-> constrains by an inexorable law, or God is judge of the
-> universe and arranges all things, or chance without reference to any
-> order impels and confounds the affairs of men, philosophy ought to
-> be our safeguard. It will encourage us to obey God
-> willingly, to obey fortune without yeilding; it will teach us to
-> follow God, to put up with chance."
   Nice posting.  Thanks.
DB>   The Stoics never erected a grand
-> ediface to the greater glory of their [vision of] God to impress the
-> masses with masses of masses inside it.
   Without wishing to sound elitist, I think it can be said that
political and religious doctrines designed for --or achieving--
mass appeal are generally suspect.
   Hal.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 5
---------------