--- Erik Reuter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2002, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > I was raised in a Christian environment, and my
> faith is expressed in
> > Christian terms. Very specifically, I was raised a
> Catholic. However,
> > I was also raised in an ecumenical environment.
> So, for example, a
> > faithful Buddhist would be respected, and could be
> considered a truer
> > follower of Christ than oneself.
>
> How about a Satan worshipper? Or an Islamic Jihad
> Muslim? A
> Crusader? Advocates of openly gay promiscuous
> homosexuality? A
> Stalinist Communist? A pro-abortionist? Torquemada?
> A radical "no
> humans" environmentalist? An Arian-superior-race
> advocate? A suicide
> cultist? Mormon polygamists? Are all of these
> beliefs respected?
>
Ummm - no. Anyone whose belief(s) infringe(s)
substantially on _my_ right to 'life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness' has no right to my respect or my
compliance with their demands. I will not wear a
burdah (sp?), or walk two paces behind any male, or
submit to the rack to suit some
tapeworm-with-an-inferiority-complex-who-turns-to-suppressing-others-in-order-to-feel-"special."
On the other hand, it's _not_ a significant
infringement on my rights to require that I am clothed
in public, that I wait my turn in line, and don't
spout obscenities at some passer-by for no reason.
{*Aside -- back in college one of my atheist friends
used to _infuriate_ the Young Communists at Free
Speech Alley (a weekly forum for yelling -Ahem!-
discussing issues) by calling them "Christian wannabes
who substitute Marx for Jesus" -- ah, those were the
days...*}
> > Our church is part of Faiths Together, which
> include Jewish, Muslim,
> > Hindu, and Christian faiths. We have a
> Thanksgiving observance every
> > year, and are doing things to mark other memorial
> events. Our church,
> > the local synagogue and the local Islamic society
> sponsored a prayer
> > service for peace in the Middle East about a year
> ago.
>
> That's nice. It sounds like your "axioms"
> (fundamental religious
> beliefs, in your case) are quite pleasant. How does
> that contradict my
> contention that there are many axioms that are not
> so pleasant, and that
> many people have used such axioms to justify their
> actions?
>
It doesn't, of course. That is one of the major
reasons to support the separation of church and state.
(Think what would happen if Falwell or Ashcroft could
impose _their_ personal beliefs on the nation!
<shudder>)
*
<snippage>
*
> I merely stated an observation about
> how it appears to
> me that some people DO behave. Do you think that
> most people are as
> ecumenical about beliefs as you are? Or are there
> more people in the
> world who are parochial or single-minded, highly
> influenced by the dogma
> which first happened to grab hold of them?
>
I think that the fanatical are -sadly- far more
visible and vocal than the moderate majority. And when
the moderates are silent, many of the weak-minded fall
prey to hate-mongers' rhetoric. _That_ is the true
crime - failure to oppose the fanatics who seek to
dominate all others. IMO.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com
