Replies to post #1393 on Poet's Corner

[ola]

KOIKAZE

No, really (and in explanation)...your BELIEF analysis was fine, it was just an interrupted thought. We could talk on far beyond that. It seems you were rolling along and then the telephone rang. Know what I mean?

As to brevity...I often challenged people presenting me with long drawn out posts by denying a response...saying: "You put that in 25 words or less and I will reply."

I know that "stream of consciousness" posts are akin to conversations in real face to face situations. They roll...they flow!

I also know that careful editing will get your BELIEF post down to 2/3 of a page or so, suitable for submission to newspapers all over America. Maybe two briefs...there is a possibility of breaking it up into several different thoughts.

The tax post turns me off...too general. It is obvious your tax post and my declaring triple by-passes for people over 60 be paid out-of-pocket are similiar. We both see (perceive) a problem but our proposed solutions are naive.

More Later

ola

[Koikaze]

Hi, there, Ola. I read your message 1396 before I started this response, and that alters what I might have said. I did not understand your opening. Your later message helped, but I'm still unclear on your meaning. That's true for other parts of your message, as well.

I believe one of the things you said was that there was little chance that the "bible thumpers" would accept what I've written. You are absolutely right. Open-mindedness is not a trait associated with that type person ... but the "bible thumpers" are not the audience I would like to reach.

The capacity for rational thought is not restricted to you and I. There are many people, perhaps even a majority, who do not totally accept religious doctrine, but who, because of the dearth of reasonably-presented contrary opinion, have little to support their search for better answers. If I had the good fortune to help one such person understand that it IS alright to consider non-doctrinaire points of view ... that it IS NOT sinful to examine the excesses of religious bias ... I would feel that the time I spent composing the essay was well spent.

I must tell you that I utterly reject the notion that all religious people are, by definition, morons. The assertion is silly on the face of it. More to the point, it blocks any hope of improving the condition of which you complain. Dialog between morons, however intense, is unlikely to lead to a beneficial result ... for the principals or for the bystanders.

You refer to the burden that religion puts on a child, and I agree with you. I have not been exempt from that burden. The struggle to work through the mental blocks imposed by religious training is onerous ... and painful. Reasoning with those crippled by such training will never be easy.

You said a couple of things that I presume were facetious or intended in a humorous way. Sadly, the medium of public bulletin boards does not lend itself to subtle humor ... or I'm too dense to understand it. In either case, I failed to grasp your meaning. I'm sorry.

I'd like to ask you two questions:

1) You have strong feelings about the injuries inflicted by religion, and I get the impression that you would like to change that. How do you think that could be accomplished?

2) I got the impression that you felt my comments on Belief were valid, but that I didn't go far enough. I wonder if you could tell me what the next step might be?

Fred