reply to post by jiggerj
And here I thought my plea for the defense of the metaphor would touch your heart.
jiggerj, I know you to be thoughtful and serious. In all decency and fairness to you, I have to respond. I wish I could do a more polished job,
would you settle, for now, for a few fuzzy concepts?
all religions HAVE TO GO!
And I say, all religions HAVE TO STAY. People from the beginning have searched for the truth about the
Supernatural. The existence of god, or gods, has been the underpinning of all societies until our modern day. I respect people's choice to search
for the truth, either in or out of religion. Just as individuals can say "There is no God," so must people be allowed to say "There is a God, and
this is my belief about Him."
Besides, you realize that, barring severe brainwashing, people will explore the question of God whether or not we insist that religion must go. You
may say that religion has to go, but the evidence of history is that it will not go. There are tens of thousands of people in China who practice
their religion, in fear of arrest, despite the awesome power of that society. Each one of those people is evidence that your desired solution is a
The most which you can argue is that all religions are bad. And even then your argument seems to be that it's not that all religions are bad, but
that we have to treat them all as bad in order to have grounds to defeat the threat of Islam or violent religious actors. Not only must we treat all
religions as bad, but we must treat theories, such as racial separtism (Ku Klux Klan?) as bad and prevent parents from teaching it to their children
in their homes. How do we create a Department of Approved Theories (under Homeland Security, no doubt), and what theories will they approve?
I have no trouble with Muslims or Jews saying my beliefs are wrong, but I do not accept people telling me that my beliefs are not allowed.
If we support one religion then on one level or another we support them all.
Depending on what that level is to which you refer, I
agree completely. Support them all.
Right now our own constitution is being used to destroy us.
We allow the Communist Party, we even allow Nancy Pelosi.
read Sarah Palin for Pelosi, if you're so inclined.) I do not feel threatened by foolish or wrong beliefs.
I do, however, fear beliefs which incite people to violence, or the overthrow of the government. What do we do about the people who are so incited?
I have no trouble with placing agents in every House of Worship in the country. In most, they would be welcomed and subjected to pleas that they
convert. I also have no trouble with agents using "stings" against people reasonably suspected. We have laws against the threats of the various
religious "extremists," we should use them without concerns for their political correctness. But taking governmental steps against beliefs is wrong
Religions are foolish and dangerous.
That is not your call, or mine, to make.
I do not comment without offering rational reasons why the bible should be thrown out, and religions destroyed. My logic is sound. My reasoning
But how sound and clear is it if the conclusion is both impossible and unconstitutional?
Do you think people like Hitchins, Dawkins, and Harris debate religion just because it's fun? Why would they care if no harm came from
I have no idea what the motivations of those distinguished gentlemen may be. Might I point out that it is almost a cliche to note
that people with three or four degrees often have crazy ideas? ( I might be one of them.)
P.s. I write to you like this because you have a penetrating and thoughtful mind with a willingness to explore different arguments. - C -
P.p.s. Also, you don't know where I live.
- C -