View Single Post
Old 14.09.2016, 10:14
JagWaugh's Avatar
JagWaugh JagWaugh is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eglisau
Posts: 7,272
Groaned at 47 Times in 46 Posts
Thanked 14,131 Times in 5,506 Posts
JagWaugh has a reputation beyond reputeJagWaugh has a reputation beyond reputeJagWaugh has a reputation beyond reputeJagWaugh has a reputation beyond reputeJagWaugh has a reputation beyond reputeJagWaugh has a reputation beyond repute
Re: All about Muslims (in the wake of terrorist attacks in Europe)

View Post
Which major religion does not proselytize? Moreover, the major problem i outlined is not about proselytizing, but about embedding a sense of being different and better.

Of course its more innocent. More importantly, economic proselytizing (whatever that means) is subject to change simply by its academic nature. Academia by definition is an environment which gets constantly challenged both internally and externally in order to progress. The only way to rein in religion is by external force. This is why Christianity is timid. Not because of religion itself, but because it was separated from the state and later subjugated.
I was making a distinction between Church and Congregation. Many churches and religious organisations are politically and economically active without demanding conversion by the recipients, but rather with the aim of bettering the life of those who are being helped. People who go to the third world to help with health care, education, or the provision of clean water under the auspices of a religious organisation are sharing their knowledge. If you speak with them you will find that they don't appear to believe that they know better, but rather that they know more about something very specific and not in the least religious, and that they feel a call to help where they can (which is certainly a sense of "different" but more with respect to the population whence they came, than where they go). This is hardly proselytizing, or would you disagree?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that all religions and churches are exclusively good. What I am claiming is that they are not necessarily all exclusively bad.

If economic relations are so balanced and empirical I guess we can ignore the need for Britain to find good negotiators for Brexit, as the final solution would necessarily be fair and to all participant's benefit. Perhaps I am a bit naive.

"The only way to rein in religion is by external force." seems to presume that all religions need reining in, and that the only way to do this is by the use of force. On the one hand I dispute that all need reining in, on the other that force is the only possibility.
If everyone you know agrees with you consistently, they are either not listening, or not capable of critical thought.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank JagWaugh for this useful post: