Dear Banjo Paterson,

I wrote: ”Thought-crimes are instruments of control used by totalitarian societies and Christianity to keep people in subjection.”

You modified what I wrote by writing: “Thought-crimes are instruments of control used by totalitarian societies and Christianity (religion) to keep people in subjection.”

I meant Christianity not religion. Christianity has a multiplicity of creedal statements such as the Nicene Creed, the Apostle’s Creed and an injunction in the New Testament. In many Christian sects communicants are required to state that they accept these creedal statements.

King James Version Matthew 5:29 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The above explicitly equates a lustful feeling with committing adultery.

Islam has one statement of belief: There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.

Judaism has one statement of belief: Here, O, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.

Neither religion has any additional creedal statements.

Islam and Judaism have many laws which one is required to observe. However, both religions are more concerned with orthopraxy (correct practice) than orthodoxy (correct belief). Christianity is more concerned with orthodoxy than orthopraxy. This is reflected in the multiplicity of sects in all three religions. The splits in Christianity are primarily caused by doctrinal differences - those in Islam and Judaism by differences in observance, practice, and law.

Both Islam and Judaism condemn adultery. Neither gets excited about a person thinking of committing adultery. Thought-crimes are a Christian not a religious concept.

I think Buddhism may also be concerned with thought-crimes.

Thank you david f... this is most interesting! I'd never realised it before.

.

Dear Graham Young (the editor),

.

I am very surprised that this article escaped the vigilance of your editorial staff.

It is largely flawed in its interpretation of Descartes’ renowned “cogito ergo sum”.

Even the author, himself, had the honesty to recognize it. He writes :

« Hi George,
I was a little apprehensive about this article and you have put your finger on its deficiencies. »

I concur entirely with George’s final judgement :

« As you can see, and could have foreseen, this was not the right “congregation” to address your sermon to. »

However, what I find more disturbing is the admission the author of the article judged suitable to publish openly on this forum (for all to see) of his disdain for his fellow participants. He states, with no apparent qualms :

« My articles are never addressed to the people who inhabit the comments section, that would be Quixotic. I have a great list of people who read my stuff and rarely comment but give me feedback by email. »

I have difficulty imagining that either you as editor of OLO or the members of your Editorial Advisory Board find this attitude acceptable.

But that, naturally, is for you to decide.

As a matter of decency and loyalty, I post this here, under the signature of my pseudonym, in addition to sending it to you under my real name to your professional e-mail address.

.

Dear Graham Young,

Following Banjo's comment, I like to say that I enjoy Peter's articles very much, I find his ideas refreshing and will be missing them if they cease to be published here.

Yes, regrettably Peter is addressing his articles specifically for a Christian audience and that detracts a bit, because as I am not as proficient in Christian theology there are bits and pieces which I sometimes fail to understand, but that's similar to, say, articles on economy in which I'm not proficient either.

Please keep it going.

---

Dear David,

Re "thought crimes":

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

[Exodus 20:17]

"Crime" is a civil concept (even when it appears in the bible): "sin" on the other hand is a religious concept, that of being off the mark. Covetousness is not a crime, nor should it be considered as such by any authority, but it is still a sin.

---

Dear George,

I am sure that Descartes tried his best to consider everything very thoroughly, still his argument is sloppy.

It's OK to make mistakes and I don't think that Peter blames Descartes, but rather the movement created by his followers which emphasises the importance of thinking, something which Descartes himself probably never said.

Dear Peter,

I do understand those faiths who promote an afterlife have a vested interest in painting the world, particularly its human inhabitants, in a negative light. It helps the sales pitch immeasurably.

I happen to believe the vast bulk of humanity are quite decent and moral individuals striving to lead good lives and have their children be better than themselves. I'm not sure about the circles you mix with but by the sound of this; “Outwardly, we pretend to be good citizens, but that is not where our hearts are, they are on the main goal, power, influence, money.” they can't be all that edifying. It certainly isn't my experience of those around me.

I don't think you should be hauling poor old Descartes over the coals when the great twisters and poisoners of moral behaviour are the ideologues, whether religious, political, or of any other stripe.

Somehow corporations have managed to convince those working in the sector that their greatest moral duty is to the shareholder. Somehow the highest echelons of the Christian faith convinced the victims of child abuse and their family members that not reporting offending clergy members to the police was 'the right thing to do'.

The users and abusers of the propensity of the general populace to do the right thing are the ones who deserve our condemnation, not poor old Descartes.

As an aside I'm wondering why you waited until later in the piece before 'nagging' us. Everyone knows Descartes doesn't go before the horse.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You are quite right. Covetousness is a sin, and it is a sin of thought. Possibly all religions are concerned with both thought and action. However, I think Christianity emphasises thought and belief over practice more than the other theistic religions.

Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury: "In a civilized all crimes are likely to be sins, but most sins are not and ought not to be treated as crimes.

Man's ultimate responsibility is to God alone."