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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (216607)	8/22/2007 6:22:59 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 793756

I don't understand the fear that many have toward religious people. They seem to buy into the idea that religion is a great force for evil, perhaps the major source of evil in the world. Religious people or at least the ones who take religion most seriously (the fundamentalists or whatever, as opposed to the "flexible" liberal believers who might be tolerable) are considered dangerous, plotting to take over and impose theocracy on everyone else. So for the sake of society's safety, we have to purge society of any religious influence. They throw up the religious wars of the middle ages or the inquisition, not mentioning that nothing like that has happened for centuries in the West and that religion in the West went through an internal process of change which allowed the present social freedom to come into existence. Another thing missed is that we have a century of experience with countries in which religious influence has been ruthlessly purged from existence. And history shows the result has not been good at all. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. made Torquemada look like a softie.

To: DMaA who wrote (216607)	8/23/2007 7:56:24 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793756

Are you arguing for the separation of religion and culture? I don't know how we could do that if we wanted to. In this country we have freedom of religion. We show great deference to people's religiosity, for the most part. Sure, some people look down on Wiccans and atheists and others actively evangelize, but for the most part we at least act respectful of the religious beliefs of others, even when we don't think they warrant it. Officially we show absolute deference, even if informally some individuals withhold it. When we get to cultural elements, though, it would not be practical to show absolute deference even if it would be desirable. There are too many conflicting preferences and practices. We have Wiccan nudists vs Christians who buy bloomer swimsuits from the 1900s in special shops, not to mention Muslims and pools. So I'm arguing for differentiating religion from culture when setting laws and official rules for what is or isn't debatable. We absolutely respect the former and officially treat the latter from a secular perspective, recognizing that secular opinions are informed by religion. Seems to me that's the most sensible approach in a pluralistic environment.