Dear SteeleRedux,

Everyone may know that Descartes doesn't go before the horse, but Sellick's unease is a horse of another choler.

Dear david f,

>> Thought-crimes are a Christian not a religious concept. <<

We have been through this before, but as you now admit yourself, there is a difference between sin and crime. For instance, intentionally missing a Sunday mass is a sin for a Catholic - I never heard it called a crime. The same about “committing adultery in one’s heart” - Jesus was speaking about sins, not about crimes punishable by (human) law.

The term “thought crime” is usually preserved for situations arising in modern totalitarian, utopian or not, societies, and have nothing to do with a mental state of “sinning against God”.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I agree that one should not request ban on articles dealing with topics that one is not proficient or interested in. My concern was only if they are presented in the form of a sermon - and not all articles by Peter are - incomprehensible to an outsider.

I would not be so eager to call Descartes’ - or any other philosopher’s whose writings have become a compulsory reading for students of philosophy, like his Meditations - arguments sloppy. Whatever Western philosophy school you approve of, it was probably influenced, in this or that sense, by Descartes.

I am also not sure what you mean by “the movement created by Descartes’ followers which emphasizes the importance of thinking” since I do not know of anybody - influenced or not by Descartes - who would claim thinking (e.g. before, rather than after, acting) was not important

Dear George,

The difference between sin and crime is blurred when a sin is treated as a crime. Some religious bodies have within them structures which penalise their communicants who violate religious law. They do not leave the punishment for sin to God as Geoffrey Fisher recommends.

Catholic Canon law, Muslim Sharia of which there are many schools and Jewish law all support bodies which penalise violations of the various codes.

Dear david f,

I do not know much of the other two but Canon law is exactly that - a law. It is not concerned with sins (they belong to the realm of Christian ethics) or crime (that belongs to the “Caesar” i.e. state to deal with) but with violations of some explicitly stated Code.

Wikipedia: Canon law (Catholic Church) The canon law of the Catholic Church is the system of laws and legal principles made and enforced by the hierarchical authorities of the Church to regulate its external organization and government and to order and direct the activities of Catholics toward the mission of the Church.

For instance, “committing adultery in one’s heart” is a sin but it is not dealt with by Cannon law; acting against the interests of the “working class” (i.e. the Party) was a crime in a Communist country but neither regarded by anybody as “sinning against God” nor as violating the Code of Cannon law.

Thus Fisher’s maxim could also be rephrased as “all violations of Canon Law are likely to be caused by a sin, but most sins are not and ought not to be treated as violations of Canon Law (that could ultimately lead to excommunication)”.

The realms of what are sins, what crimes in this or that country, what violations of Canon law overlap but no two of them are identical.

However, here I am treading on insecure ground since I am certainly not a lawyer, canon or else.

.

Dear david f,

.

« 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” »
.

Of course you did, david. But I did not replace the word “Christianity” with the word “religion”. I did not “modify” what you wrote but simply “inserted” in brackets what I (perhaps, mistakenly) thought was true. In anticipation of the 350 word-count limit, I took a short-cut. I apologise for the confusion.
.

You later replied to Yuyutsu :

« 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. »
.

As we say in French: “dont acte” (“duly acknowledged”).
.

Wikipedia on Halakha (Jewish religious law) :

« Heretics do not have a portion in the world to come. Their souls are cut off and they are judged for their sins. »
.

Wikipedia on “thought-crimes” under Islamic Sharia law :

« Leaving Islam is a sin and a religious crime. Once any man or woman is officially classified as Muslim, because of birth or religious conversion, he or she will be subject to the death penalty if he or she becomes an apostate.

« If a person has never been a Muslim, and is not a kafir (infidel, unbeliever), he or she can live in an Islamic state by accepting to be a dhimmi, or under a special permission called aman. He or she will suffer certain limitations of rights as a subject of an Islamic state, and will not enjoy complete legal equality with Muslims. »

« If a person has never been a Muslim, and is a kafir (infidel, unbeliever), sharia demands that he or she should be offered the choice to convert to Islam and become a Muslim; if they reject the offer, he or she may become a dhimmi. failure to pay the tax may lead the non-muslim to either be enslaved, killed or ransomed if captured. »

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

« 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. … Please keep it going. »
.

Obviously, I cannot anticipate what action, if any, Graham Young and his colleagues may decide appropriate in response to my comment.

If it’s of any reassurance to you, I added the following message to the e-mail I sent to Graham’s professional address, as a preamble to the text I posted on the forum :

« Please be assured that I mean no harm to the brave Peter Sellick but I find his attitude to the participants on OLO unacceptable and requires some response from you as editor and, perhaps, your board if you judge it pertinent. »

In any event, Yuyutsu, you may recall that Peter indicated in his post to George :

« I have a great list of people who read my stuff and rarely comment but give me feedback by email. »

You may find Peter’s e-mail address on his home page on OLO. It is accessible to anybody who is interested :

http://petersellick.nationalforum.com.au/contact.php

I am sure he would be delighted to add you to his mailing list.

There you go. I am even helping Peter to proselytise. Or, perhaps in your particular case, perhaps I should say to syncretise.

.