- About Us
In these comments, people seem to be getting upset for no good reason (other that what is happening inside their own heads):
1. Stallman was asked to report on his own experiences and he did. Everything he wrote about described his own personal experience of the quake -- including his reflections about the church collapse. Are blogs not meant to be personal reflections? Should he restrict his refllections only to those that some subset of his readers might deem to be "acceptable" or "politically correct"? If everyone did that, what kind of discussion would ensue -- about anything?
2. Why are people who claim to have religious faith getting so upset when someone questions the logic of that faith? If you could prove religious beliefs to be correct using logic, then faith would be unnecessary. Is their faith so weak that they can't stand to ever see it questioned?
3. Stallman's observation is quite logical -- why a benevolent deity would permit human pain and suffering is a perfectly valid question, one that theologians wrestle with. A cynic might suggest that maybe such a deity permitted the disaster to occur in order to demonstrate benevolence in saving the life of a priest. That is not my view, but that's immaterial. The pont is that NOBODY knows the answer. So it's a legitimate topic for debate, by theologians, or anyone else. Do the people getting upset about Stallman's comments think they are the only ones who are entitled to hold opinions about this unfathomable religious dilemma?
Return to Stallman survives Peruvian quake