Science & religion &c

Luis Gonzalez-Reimann reimann at
Wed May 28 01:28:34 UTC 1997

At 06:03 PM 5/27/97 BST, Beatrice Reusch wrote:
>At 11:12 +0100 5/27/97, Mr B.Philip.Jonsson wrote:
>>At 09:09 27.5.1997 +0100, Edwin F Bryant wrote:
>>>My question to Louis remains: why was it
>>>considered appropriate, to drag in and broadcast Howard's
>>>personal religious orientations when this was irrelevant to the simple
>>>point he was making (which was not to advocate scholarly neutrality)?
>>>Edwin Bryant
>>Does this mean that you consider it of no consequence what "personal
>>religious orientations" a scholar holds? Far from finding it desirable to
>>conceal my own religious orientation I think it is important that it is
>>known, ...
>Perhaps a related question would be the following:
>Would Louis have reacted in exactly the same way if Howard Resnick was (for
>the sake of the argument) a Catholic bishop in Mexico City or an important
>Rabbi in New York City?

Absolutely.  In this respect I am equidistant to remarks by Howard Resnick,
a Lubavitcher Rabbi from New York, or the Pope in Rome.  You could also add
the Dalai Lama, a Candomble priest, an Evangelical Christian preacher, a
Mormon, a shaman, or anyone else you like.
I am neither Catholic nor Jewish (you seem to think I am either, or both!).
I do not belong to any religion so, as far as these things are concerned, I
have no axe to grind.

>(No offenses intended. No argumentum-ad-hominem intended. Just wishing to
>be enlightened by the list Re the bottom line.)

It did sound like it, though!  While we're at it, if disclosure is called
upon, it would be interesting to know how many of those who jumped into this
discussion to "defend" Howard Resnick have his same religious affiliation.
Otherwise, we can just leave it at that.



More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list