On Aug 1, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > On 31 Jul 2007 at 20:17, Warren Ockrassa wrote: > >> Just a couple quibbles. >> >> There are in fact stacks of religions which claim literalism. *All* > >> fundamentalist interpretations of *all* sects do so. > > ... > > Absolute rubbish, I'm afraid. Within Judaism the tiny Kairite > movement is literalist, and the only one of any size (15,000) > whatsoever*. The "ultra-religious" Jewish movements like the Haredi > or Chabad-Lubavitch are most certainly not litteralists.
Then I stand corrected. How about "virtually all" instead of "all"? >>> Um, sharp differentation there. Scientology is an presently and >>> actively dangerous *criminal organisation*. So putting it in a list >>> with anything else is wrong. We don't tolerate the Mafia, why do we >>> tolerate scientology again? Oh right, Tom Cruise. *thud*. >> >> That aside, the Catholic church actively engaged in hiding >> priest-rapists for *decades*. There are strong indications they still >> do so. This fits well into my definition of criminal behavior. > > There is no "aside" (and I'd have more to say otherwise). If you are > willing to tolerate Scientology, then why criticise any religious > ideology? When did I indicate a willingness to tolerate Scientology? I find them silly at best and, yes, criminal at worst. I was just pointing out that the problems aren't exclusive to Hubbard's silly little cult. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
