[Vision2020] True Muslims and True Americans

[Paul Rumelhart]

What I wrote in point number 3 was poorly written.  I was talking about 
those actions which are illegal, not all actions associated with a 
religion.  If the society that wanted to build pyramids and sacrifice 
people with obsidian knives opened up a chapter here in Moscow, we 
couldn't let them kill people.  That's not singling them out; we 
wouldn't let christians stone me to death for having dabbled with the 
occult or for wearing a shirt made of two different fabrics either.

Is the act of stopping a particular religion's members from breaking the 
law disrespecting that religion?  I'd say that it isn't as long as the 
law itself was not designed specifically to counter that religion and 
had society's best interests in mind.  Laws against murder are already 
on the books so the above scenario would not be singling out that 
religion.  If there was a law against the Jesus Fish or something, then 
that would be disrespect for that religion.  It's basically "do what you 
like until you affect other's rights".

Society should only step in when the rights of others are being 
affected.  Such as the right to continued life.  Otherwise it should 
leave well enough alone.  In  my opinion, anyway.

Paul

Taro Tanaka wrote:

>Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com wrote:
>
>[[ 3. Respecting actions taken that derive from a particular belief.  Here
>is where the line really is.  If a Satanist sacrifices someone, they've
>crossed the line and should be punished.  If a Satanist is known to be
>about to sacrifice someone, they should be stopped and tried in a court
>of law.  That goes for Muslims who interpret the Qu'ran to say that they
>should kill Americans as well as Christians who think God has told them
>to kill an abortion doctor.  If you cross this line in the other
>direction, you are into the realm of Thought Crimes.  If there is one
>inalienable right, it's the right to think what you want to think.  The
>inside of your head is sacrosanct.  It's when thoughts become actions
>that society has the right to intervene. ]]
>
>Paul, that's not called respecting someone's religious beliefs; that's 
>called goring someone's ox, and I'm all for it. "Freedom of religion" means 
>freedom to PRACTICE one's religion. Obviously, it is not possible for a 
>society to allow religious freedom for all religions. If some Mexican 
>immigrants want to build a big pyramid in New Mexico and use obsidian knives 
>to cut out people's beating hearts at the apex, that will obviously conflict 
>with the religious beliefs of all modern Americans. "But our gods command us 
>to sacrifice to them," they will protest. "Even the people we sacrifice 
>agree that their deaths are necessary." To that any reasonable person -- 
>even Nick Gier, I presume -- would reply, "Your so-called gods are full of 
>sh*t and you're under arrest." But even as we say that, we have to recognize 
>that entire societies based on such practices existed for many centuries. It 
>is possible to build a society based on a religion that cuts out people's 
>beating hearts with an obsidian knife. But it is not possible for such a 
>society to continue to exist once certain other religions -- especially 
>Christianity -- start to permeate that society. Because certain other 
>religions, expecially Christianity, would declare war on such practices. It 
>is a war to the death -- the death of one religious system or the other. The 
>two religious systems cannot coexist. And that is precisely why there are no 
>longer any societies based on cutting out people's beating hearts with 
>obsidian knives.
>
>That was a pretty extreme example, but it illustrates the point. Freedom of 
>religion is the freedom to PRACTICE one's religion, and no society can grant 
>full freedom to all religions. So anyone who says he respects all religious 
>beliefs is, for one reaon or another, not telling the truth. It is simply a 
>fact that nobody respects all religious beliefs.
>
>I think this is as good a time as any to point out one of the faulty hidden 
>assumptions at work when people try to distinguish between intellectual 
>assent to a certain set of propositions on the one hand, and actually living 
>in terms of one's beliefs on the other. I bring this up because both Paul 
>and Nick have spoken along the lines that anyone is free to believe anything 
>they want, and that is what "respecting religious beliefs" is all about; but 
>people might be stepping over the line into forbidden territory if they try 
>to actually put those beliefs into practice.
>
>This is called gnosticism. It is the view that limits religion to the realm 
>of ideas and concepts. But the Bible rejects that view vehemently. The 
>epistle of James says:
>
>'. . . faith, if it has no works, is dead in itself. Yes, a man will say, 
>"You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without works, and I 
>by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one. You do 
>well. The demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to know, 
>vain man, that faith apart from works is dead? Wasn't Abraham our father 
>justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You 
>see that faith worked with his works, and by works faith was perfected; and 
>the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was 
>accounted to him as righteousness;" and he was called the friend of God. You 
>see then that by works, a man is justified, and not only by faith.'
>
>Here James is saying very clearly that if mere intellectual assent to 
>certain propositions is all that is called for, the demons know all those 
>things very well. They are able to pay intellectuall assent to the 
>truthfulness of the creedal statements of Christendom, but their 
>intellectual assent is not accompanied by obedience, and it is obedience 
>that is demanded. Why are Christians obedient? Because they have faith that 
>God demands and shall reward their obedience. In other words, part of the 
>Christian's intellectual assent is that mere intellectual assent is not 
>enough. This is a religious belief that is bound to put someone on a 
>collision course with folks like Nick Gier. Whenever Nick Gier lives out his 
>religious beliefs, my ox is getting gored, at least potentially. And 
>whenever I live out my religious beliefs, Nick Gier's ox is getting gored, 
>at least potentially. I don't see any reason to apologize for this state of 
>affairs or to pretend that it doesn't exist. I believe in calling a spade a 
>spade. It simply is not possible to equally respect all religious beliefs.
>
>-- Princess Sushitushi
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! 
>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>=======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>               http://www.fsr.net                       
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
>
>  
>