> Or when one is rejecting an organization. I've come across people
who
> have rejected religions, political parties, even social groups
because
> they considered these groups to essentially be "betraying"
the "true"
> doctrine or the doctrine "behind" the doctrine.
<grin> I'm a member of an organisation undergoing just such a soulsearching. And I think this is the point of the conflict, and why I feel it is much less about the individual. If you had two practitioners of faith or philosophy A, they can tolerate a variety in their praxis, because neither is affected by the others misdemeanors. I think this is common in Orlanthi society, frex, because of the very devolved and personal nature of its religious institutions. But such a conflict would be much more significant to the more structured societies for whom such religious issues occur at a national level and affect a formal dogma followed by hundreds of thousands. Just imagine what kind of a ruckus an alteration to the Abiding Book would cause.
Anyway, all I meant to say was that if two disciples argue in the woods, no-one cares. If they raise armeis and start putting people to the sword, everyone cares.
Powered by hypermail