Re: Re: Terror in war

From: oswaldtrimling_at_E0IMZSrgai8Ttg2BaC1XlWG2hJAZDhfawo1GkD27GzcPoINQrxd8mFAq_iBls <oswaldtrimling_at_E0IMZSrgai8Ttg2BaC1XlWG2hJAZDhfawo1GkD27GzcPoINQrxd8mFAq_iBlst9C>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 08:26:11 +0100


Jeff Richard wrote:
>
> > It may be possible to be dangerous without being religious - in much
> the
> > same way as its possible to be dangerous without being a red-hot poker.
> > And the fact that some things can be dangerous without being red hot
> > pokers, does not necessarily prove that most (or even many) red hot
> > pokers are safe.
>
> And now let's add some rabid anti-religious bigotry to the stew...
> Geez Mark, I'm afraid you were responding to only the tip of the
> iceberg on this list.
>

Oh, the reverse is also true. I'll readily acknowledge that the fact that some religious people are dangerous doesn't prove they all are (or even most of them). The problem, I think, is excessive devotion to any cause - could be religion, could be communism, could be racial purity, you name it. In this respect, I don't think religion is any worse than, say, politics. Religion has clearly done a lot of good in the world, IMO, but that doesn't hide the fact it's done some bad stuff, too. Nor does it hide the fact that there are some non-religious people who are complete bastards, and some who have, instead, done a lot of good.            

Powered by hypermail