Here's another comment that was just left on a post from long, long ago. (If I don't mention it here, chances are no one will ever see it, so I reproduce it here as a public service.)
The original post quoted the entry for "Atheist" from the first edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1768 - 1771) which I have always admired for its tone of withering, dismissive irony:
Atheist: a person who does not believe the existence of a Deity. Many people, both ancient and modern, have pretended to atheism, or have been reckoned atheists by the world; but it is justly questioned whether any man seriously adopted such a principle. These pretensions, therefore, must be founded on pride or affectation.The commenter objects:
I cannot believe the stupidity of this web log. How can you quote an article from the 18th century and pretend it can be still valid? Shouldn't we, then, be using the Napoleon Civil Code's sexist rules for marriage and divorce nowadays? Yes, it is ridiculous that everyone be demanding a regognition of their rights, and, yes, the expression "atheist rights" refers to a moronic ideal, but can't you respect---I'm talking to Mr. Joshua White, here--other people's beliefs and thoughts? Don't you even know what your country's constitution is about?In answer to the last question, probably not, in fact, but with regard to the Constitution it's my understanding that they came up with that in the 18th Century, too.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Posted by Dr. Frank at November 24, 2005 03:32 AM | TrackBackI couldn't disagree with your initial post more. This post in amusing though.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Posted by: josh at November 25, 2005 02:25 AMI owe a lot to pride and affectation / they've got me through my darkest days...
Posted by: Wesley at November 25, 2005 04:10 PMWhat's wrong with sexy rules for marriage and divorce?
Posted by: atzbo at November 25, 2005 10:17 PMI love it man. They should put that back in the next edition. I'm gonna try and add it to Wikipedia.
Posted by: Mike McColgan at November 29, 2005 05:46 PM