Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (2030)	7/6/2007 2:59:21 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 4152

A theology is bound in divinity. A dogma is a corpus of doctrines set forth by an authority on matters of religion. You may choose to criticize a dogma because we all know authoritarians, especially extremist authoritarians, tend to corrupt scripture to advance their own desires. Criticism should be focused on a flawed definition of divinity. Divinity by definition is perfect, so beyond criticism. If you accept certain premises, like 1) Extremists corrupt principle, 2) Extremists are psychopathic, 3) Extremism is evil … then it is easy to hold them responsible for their deeds and to absolve the innocents who would be incidentally implicated by associated affiliations. Then, it is easy to study the underlying religion and see how extremists have corrupted it. The only way to defeat extremism is to invite all innocents on our side. You are not going to unite with innocent Muslims by attacking Islamic principle. The vast majority of Muslims are not extremists, see God as benevolent toward all human beings and other creatures, and understand the basis of seeking peace on earth and having good will toward fellow creatures. I see nothing wrong with discussing the conduct, objectives, or strategies of extremist individuals or groups. They are no more authorities of the underlying theology than Ted Bundy was the Authority on free will and principles of liberty and justice in America, though he was an attorney. If you attack theology you end up drawing lines in the sand and you risk validating the radical interpretations for the less affluent followers of the religion. You lose accountability for the persons, when you hold the underlying theology responsible. If you want to understand the wholeness of a message or argue against the message, which has been corrupted by extremists, Kumar would prefer you pursue that elsewhere. He has given his reasons.