|
Zonie63 -> RE: "Religion will become as unacceptable as racism" (3/16/2014 7:06:43 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I'm not sure what would make anyone "religious" or otherwise qualify extreme and/or terror groups as "religious." They might claim to be "religious," but then again, if they don't even follow the edicts and principles of their own stated belief system, then they might be more like political opportunists - using religion for their own personal gain.
Of course, one can also find similar opportunists within secular political ideologies as well, so there's really no difference between religion and politics in that regard.
It is not difficult to find justification for all kinds of mayhem and abhorrent practices in the Bible and Koran, so I have to question that claim.
If their religion states that murder is a sin, and if they commit murder, then they're not following the edicts and principles of their stated belief system.
If the religion states that God is "all-knowing" and "all-powerful," then there's no real need for any "holy wars" or any clergy to set themselves up as secular authority figures. Someone who feels they have to kill or fight a battle for God is tacitly saying "I don't believe God is all-knowing or all-powerful, so therefore I must do His work for Him."
It's a human ego thing, not religion. It's the idea that "I know the real Truth better than everyone else. Anyone who disagrees with me must obviously be against Truth and an apostate." It doesn't even matter what the actual belief is, whether it's political or religious. You could probably discern the same phenomenon among extreme sports fanatics, as rival fans have been known to fight and even kill on occasion (such as a recent incident where a San Francisco Giants fan was killed at Dodger Stadium).
It carries the same elements as religious or political fanaticism, which is why I'm reluctant to single out "religion" as a scapegoat for all our problems. It carries the implied argument that "if there was no religion, there would be no violence or mayhem in this world," which I find to be a very naive and dangerous position to take.
quote:
And consider this definition of religion from dictionary.com:
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons
Obviously, this is worthless. And the problem is a serious one in a society where religion enjoys Constitutional protection. I think there is much to be gained from defining religion in a way that denies protection to teachings and practices that serve to divide humanity and set a man against his neighbor. I'm sure some the proponents of what passes for "religion" these days might not like that very much, but I would be inclined to regard their objections as underscoring the need for such.
Granted, people can think as they wish and say whatever they want. But subsidizing such nonsense through tax exemptions and subverting our cherished ideals in order to avoid charges of "religious discrimination" incur costs that go beyond just dollars and cents.
K.
One thing that seems evident in the United States, where we've embraced a tradition of Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State, is that there hasn't really been the same level of religious discord in America as we've seen in Europe over the centuries. There has been some, but not as much as in Europe or the Middle East.
|
|
|
|
