| ??? 10/26/11 00:56 Read: times |
#184365 - While I agree with you ... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Andy Peters said:
Richard Erlacher said:
50+ years ago, I read a book, by a fellow name John Masters, called The Deceivers, which, basically, focused on a group in India that practiced its religion by killing innocents. I doubt that would be tolerated here. Of course it wouldn't, because there are laws against murder, which courts have indicated supersede the religious beliefs. This can be explained as, "Your right to practice your religion ends where this other person's right to life begins." Someone ought to tell this to many of the radical bible-thumpers here in the U.S, starting with that moron who wants to burn the Quoran just to p*ss off the Muslims. A less extreme example is that some religious groups claim that certain illegal drugs are "sacred" and as such should be allowed to be used in rites.
Not all "bible thumpers" are stupid or crazy, but religious extremism isn't limited to the followers of Islam. There's plenty of "We're right and everybody else is wrong" to go around in that arena. The word you seek is "fundamentalism," and it's a mental condition for which treatment should be sought. -a Actually, fundamentalism isn't the only problem. Originally (I once was married to a preacher's daughter) fundamentalism meant, simply put, strict literal interpretation of the scriptures. Sadly, there are a number of principles, e.g. handling the carcass of a pig (which might seriously offend the NFL), selling one's daughters (which certainly would p*ss off the women's lobby), etc, that seem to have escaped the "fundamentalist" community, and the role that they've allowed women to take on in society certainly isn't scriptural, not that I believe that it should be. Liberal interpretation of the scriptures seems to lead to just as many odd treatments of "right and wrong" as fundamentalism. Liberalism in religion is similar to liberalism in interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. It can range from a few deviations to "whatever seems appropriate at the time." What the hey ... RE |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| wot I don't understand is.... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| People have to think for themselves. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, we're all individuals! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| What troubles me ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Its very simil | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Difference | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Double post ... sorry! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Some time back ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Unfortunatetly, "thinking" doesn't help. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| you're probably right | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No. More a question of hands-on feedback from known sources | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| why he can't be arrested | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Shouldn't it matter HOW he practices his religion? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| limits | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
While I agree with you ... | 01/01/70 00:00 |