From: Cory Przybyla (recherchetenet@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Jul 18 2002 - 17:54:42 MDT
> > If you want freedom of belief, then you must have
> > freedom from the dogma of other beliefs. In order
> > to
> > escape their dogma, they must be prevented from
> > standard pressure tactics, or blatantly forcing
> > their
> > views.
>
> I wasn't aware that you had a right to prevent
> people
> from speaking. You have a right not to listen, to
> get
> up and go elsewhere, or to rant your own dogma right
> back at them until they get a clue and shut up.
if you can get up and go elsewhere, rant your own
dogma, then they're aren't using pressure tactics, or
atleast not well.
BTW, at www.dictionary.com I get this as the first
definition for dogma: A doctrine or a corpus of
doctrines relating to matters such as morality and
faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a
church.
I think it's important to note the authoritative, and
make a connection to authoritarian...
I fail to see, although wouldn't fight against, why
people should have the right to present faith based
arguments as undeniable fact. How 'bout a disclaimer
on every religion saying that "the following beliefs
are yet to be proven" or maybe someone has a catchier
line. We're allowed to present questionable facts in
tabloids, but what if people acted on killing
someone's child because it was called the "devil child
who needs to be killed", or any of an number of
negative ideas as such. Should they still be allowed
to print these things. However I know of no instances
of killing over a tabloid. I know whole wars designed
purely around religion, as I'm sure do you...
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:33 MST