Subject: Even more Christian intolerance ...
Yet another rather enlightening article from the Jan/Feb 1991
issue of "Freethought Today," this being a letter from one
Stephen D. Mumford, Ph.D., Center for Research on Population
and Security, North Carolina. In the letter, Mumford brings
our attention to a rather nifty display of religious intolerance.
============= letter =============
' The Right to Persecute Heretics'
"Concerning the Right to Persecute Heretics" by George A. Kendall
appeared in the Nov. 15, 1990 issue of "The Wanderer" (Vol. 123,
no. 46). This 123-year old conservative Catholic publication is the
most obedient of the US Catholic weeklies. It says nothing that
is inconsistent with Vatican policy.
Kendall writes that society has a basic right to persecute
heretics. Secularism "has, indeed, no rights and can legitimately
be suppressed by both the Church and the state. The suppression
of secularism is a legitimate project.
"Of course, such a suppression does not necessarily mean
rounding up all known secularists and putting them to death,
or suppressing secularist publications and speech. [Murder as
an option is not ruled out.] The precise measures to be taken
will have to depend on pragmatic considerations, and certainly
no more force should be employed than is actually necessary ..."
"But it would certainly be desirable, and, I think, even
obligatory, for society to place secularists under some civil
disabilities to prevent them from taking power--prohibiting them
from holding public office or teaching in our schools are fairly
obvious ones that come to mind. We Christians have both the
right and the duty to campaign for such measures, and no guilty
preoccupation with 'pluralism' should prevent us from doing so.
Paul Blanshard and many other authors wrote about this reality,
but somehow I thought it would be different in November 1990.
The article gives abortion and sex education as examples of
why secularists deserve persecution, making it clear who the
serious opponents of abortion really are and the lengths to
which they are willing to go.
============== end of letter ===========
As before, comments? Since I am not a regular reader of
this group (I can't stomach wading through 90% of the dreck
here for the occasional nugget of sense), feel free to e-mail me.