On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 10:47:43PM -0500, Jim Sharkey wrote: > > Erik Reuter wrote: > Alberto Monteiro wrote: > >>Should Democracy be banned because eventually we [*] elect a jerk, > >>a tyrant, a thief or a megalomaniac? > > > >Should prostitution be banned because in the prostitution business > >some people might take unfair advantage of others? > > > >Should fraud be banned because someone might get tricked? > > > >Should gambling be banned because someone might lose their money? > > > >Should drugs be banned because someone using them might hurt > >themselves or others?
> > Any of these arguments could be applied to the religion question. Yes, but if they were applied that way, then they would suggest that religion should be banned, since all of those things are banned. > I take it then, that you don't agree with the Fool's position? Heh, no, I don't agree with eradicating religion (but I will argue against its excesses and irrationalities every chance I get!). I don't agree with banning the things I listed above, either. If it can be ignored by those who aren't into it, then I don't want to ban it. If 10% of religious people attack me, then I'll fight against those 10%, not against the other 90% or all 100%. If 25% (I made this up also) of people who take drugs hurt others, then I will consider those 25% criminals and the other 75% can do as they like as far as I am concerned. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
