Pericles

Christianity, Hinduism & Judaism are indeed also belief systems. So is Zionism.

And according to a High Court decision Scientology is a "religion".

Please explain why a belief system or ideology that happens to be a "religion" should be immune from critique, analysis, satire and scorn.

You write:

"Your attempt to equate a religious belief with a totalitarian political system is...fraudulent..."

Why?

What is so special about a belief system that is labelled a "religion"?

Why can a belief system that happens to fall within the generally accepted definition of a "religion" not simultaneously be a totalitarian ideology?

I fail to see why these are mutually exclusive.

In fact I would say that all religious belief systems have elements of totalitarian ideology in them. Think of Calvin's Geneva. Think of the Spanish Inquisition.

YOU NEED TO SHAKE OFF THIS CHILDISH NOTION THAT THERE IS SOMETHING SPECIAL ABOUT A BELIEF SYSTEM THAT HAPPENS TO BE LABELLED A "RELIGION".

Forget your Sunday school lessons. Belief systems that claim to be "religions" have proven through the ages that they can be every bit as evil as the worst secular belief system.

You write:

"But to use the language that you do in order to describe an entire religion leaves you completely exposed to the charge of inciting fear and loathing."

I certainly think we should fear and loathe totalitarian belief systems be they "religions" or secular.

The difference between you and me, Pericles, is that I see no reason to accord any special privilege to belief systems that happen to be labelled a "religion."

I wonder why you do.

Overexposure to Sunday school perhaps?

Dear Steven,

Your remarks to me are seriously out of
line and totally uncalled for.

I regard Islam as a faith, a belief
system as Pericles pointed out,
and as I stated over and over again,
I do not condone violence, no matter
where it comes from. However, the point
that I was trying to make was that by far the
majority of Muslims today live their
lives without recourse to violence,
because the Koran (like the Bible)
is like a pick-and-mix
selection. If you want peace, you can
find peaceable verses. If you want war,
you can find bellicose verses.
Any eccentric or extremist in any
belief system can find
their own interpretation of their faith.
No one has been suggesting that you can't
criticize any faith. Our criticism has been only
that you can't tar all of the followers of
any religion with the same brush as the
fundamentalists of that religion.

However to say to me that I am no better
than Stalinist followers is beyond
repulsion when you know full well how my
family suffered from the Stalinist regime,
and my father's brother was tortured to
death, while the rest of the family
were deported to Siberia.

How would you feel if I was to accuse you
of being a supporter of Hitler and the Nazis,
while knowing your family had perished in the Holocaust?

Steven you owe me an apology.
However, I won't hold my breath.

Dancing hard, I see stevenlmeyer.

>>Please explain why a belief system or ideology that happens to be a "religion" should be immune from critique, analysis, satire and scorn.<<

Where did I suggest immunity? You just invented that, didn't you.

Par for the course.

>>What is so special about a belief system that is labelled a "religion"? <<

See, you're doing it again.

Deliberately conflating political systems with religious systems. That's what is fraudulent.

>>Why can a belief system that happens to fall within the generally accepted definition of a "religion" not simultaneously be a totalitarian ideology?<<

Because you have to prove it to be. All of it. Not just the extremists.

Are you getting the picture yet?

>>In fact I would say that all religious belief systems have elements of totalitarian ideology in them.<<

Which proves absolutely nothing. And you know it.

>>Belief systems that claim to be "religions" have proven through the ages that they can be every bit as evil as the worst secular belief system<<

True. But irrelevant. It is the "can be" that gives you away.

Boy, you are a one for weasel-words and sneaky phrases, aren't you?

>>I certainly think we should fear and loathe totalitarian belief systems be they "religions" or secular.<<

And right back where we started. A nice generalization that you can drive a truck through.

>>The difference between you and me, Pericles, is that I see no reason to accord any special privilege to belief systems that happen to be labelled a "religion."<<

There are many differences between you and me, stevenlmeyer, for which I am extremely thankful.

But this is not one of them.

I hold no such view. Nor have ever held such a view.

You're clutching at straws.

And you know it.

Come now people,
Mohammed would never have countenanced such enmity.

Steven... if you were speaking with rational people.. all you say would make perfect sense.. it does to me... and to Proxy and I'm sure it would to any person who has made a fairly reasonable effort to study a few religions.

The disconnect between Foxy and the rationals :)(*waves at Foxy*) is that Foxy does not apply the rules of grammer and interpretation that she would EARNESTLY apply to the meaning of the Law if suddenly she found herself on the wrong end of say a lawsuit.

I hazard a guess she would be pouring over documents right left and centre and trying to work out if the claimant actually had a case.

Which of course is how any reasonable person would approach not just a lawsuit or criminal charges...but also religion.

Foxy resorts to the one irrefutable tool in her arsenal "sentimentality" which would be commendable if she worked in a hospice for the dying, rather than a forum for the living.

Foxy.. I notice that pattern..when people's argument reaches the point of 'game set match' you retreat into your sentimentality and idealism.

I can unscramble your brain with a good walk! bring hubby out and we'll fix ya. (though there is a naughty Goanna which suddenly scrambles up a particular tree and just about gave me a heart attack:)

Poor Pericles.. you'd think he gets sick of traipsing around the same old territory. Nevermind P.. I can unscramble your brain with Foxy.
You of all people should know how to interpret law..and holy documents are not far off in some cases..they just use sentences and words.. not too formidable for one such as you who appears to pride himself on pedantry.

You and dear foxy are both patently incorrect in thinking you can just 'grab' verses to suit your purpose. Of course it can be 'done'...but done improperly it makes as much sense as referring to the child protection act when you are suing your neighbour for blackberry intrusion. (that is how silly you sometimes appear)

Dear AG,

Do you know what "chutzpa" is?
Its Yiddish slang for unmitigated
effrontery or impudence.

An example that comes to mind is
when someone defecates on your
front door mat, then rings
your door-bell and asks you for
toilet paper.

Your last post was a perfect example
of it!

Thank You for making me laugh!