I was in a meeting so I missed a lot of these posts so I'd like to respond to themes rather than specific points for there are far too many to list. Religion, in and of itself is not bad. Even those of you that don't believe in any form of God concede that point. A visiting priest to my church, just a few weeks ago, talked on this very issue and addressed a lot of these concerns. How people interpret the Bible, Koran, whatever, gives you a view into that persons soul. It tells you about them not the books that they read or the religion that they subscribe to. How a person views the world, tells you about them, not how the world really is. I have a positive outlook on things because that's my nature. I see the good in people before I notice the bad because I have a predisposition to do so. Others have the opposite. I would be considered an optimist while others who relish in the negativity in life are pessimists. The glass is half full versus half empty. Read through the posts that individuals, on a consistent basis, post up here and you will see a pattern. There are pessimists and optimists and the respective people defending that. So when you ask me how can I say that with any certainty, I say that because I have no reason to think otherwise. I don't believe that they are violent people or would advocate violence. They may not be tolerant, but that does not mean that they will, as a matter of course, become violent. Of course, anything is possible. But I deal more in probabilities rather than possibilities. Those of you who choose science over faith should agree with that.
I've read several posts referring to religious zealots and how crazy and mind numbed they are. Is that your only experience with people who practice their faith? Have you no examples of people who believe in whatever God that they believe in but are good, decent, honest people? Better yet, aren't those people more prominent than the zealots that you hold up as examples of the religious? I can count on one hand the people that I have met like Falwell or Robertson but there aren't enough digits on this list that can account for the good and decent people that I have come across. I find it to be very disingenuous to only show the one aspect (conveniently supporting your beliefs) and not to be honest and weigh that against the bigger picture. I used to use science as a way to argue against God and religion because I once subscribed to that belief. I thought that I had to discount the existence of God in order to be considered a "critical thinker" until I had a conversation with the most critical thinker that I ever met..my old man (smart man. don't know what happened to me though) He put forth this argument to me: If you believe that the laws of physics are true, then you must believe in the existence of God. One of the laws of physics is that an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by some external force. In order for the universe to exist, something had to set it in motion. If it was the big bang, then something made it go bang. No matter how far you trace it back, you eventually have to get to the point where the universe was, at one point, not in motion. Something had to put the universe in motion and that, in my opinion, is God. Whether you want to accept this or not is up to you but it's the best argument that I could put forth that uses logic rather than "just because." Michael Corrigan ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary P. McNeel, Jr. To: CF-Community Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 1:41 PM Subject: RE: Falwell like the Taliban ( was Re[2]: beauuuuutiful Friday) ::in a mild voice, no rancour intended:: How can you say this with any certainty Michael? Who knows what these men would do. Fundamentalism is fundamentalism. Period. Far right or far left, it is the same thing. Jim Jones did not start out killing 900 people, it took years to manifest itself. Who knows how many people have watched Robertson or Falwell, and in the name of what they preach (persuade), went out and shot an abortion clinic doctor? Hitler did not have to pull the trigger to kill millions of people (or Stalin for that matter), they "persuade" others to do it. No, we should keep a leash on these people as we would a Hitler, or a KKK or any other extremist group. -Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 11:45 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Falwell like the Taliban ( was Re[2]: beauuuuutiful Friday) > > > Gel, > > It is one thing to have extreme, oppressive, fundamentalist views > and something else to act on them. It would be a more accurate to > compare Neo-Nazi's and the KKK to the Taliban rather than Falwell or > Robertson. The difference is the actions taken. Even if you > extrapolate their views and give them action, they are not a militant > group. They are ideologues that use words to persuade, not force. So, > while living in an environment dominated by such thought would be > horrible, it would not be equally comparable to the life of the > Afghanistani people or to those that visit there. Whether or not there > are different facets of the Taliban is irrelevant. The facet that > controls the country and dictates policy is relevant. I'm sure that > there is a "kinder gentler" side of the KKK, but does that change the > very nature of the beast? No. > > Michael Corrigan > Programmer > Endora Digital Solutions > www.endoradigital.com > 630/942-5211 x-134 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Angel Stewart > To: CF-Community > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 11:16 AM > Subject: Falwell like the Taliban ( was Re[2]: beauuuuutiful Friday) > > > The taliban are oppressive fundamentalists in their views. > There are different facets of the Taliban, and in this context it > should > be obvious which such facets are being referred to. > > The Taliban are narrowminded and obtuse in their religions views and > laws.Similarly, so is Falwell's views. Extrapolate this to living > under > a state guided by Falwell's principles. > > -Gel > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > I disagree wholeheartedly with that statement. I'm no fan of Falwell > or > > Robertson, but I don't see them advocating killing people from other > religions. I don't see them condemning women from receiving an > education or participating in the workforce. I certainly don't see > them > > in support of organizations that murder innocent civilians or building > a > > rebellious and violent movement to overthrow the government to force > all > > Americans to subscribe to their religious beliefs. I don't believe > that > > they support terrorism of any kind. If you have proof contrary to > this > then I'd like to see it. But to equate Robertson and Falwell to Bin > Laden or the Taliban is frankly narrow minded and obtuse. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
