As with any good thing Daseal, its misuse can have evil consequences. Further, how better for evil to discredit good than by taking potent tools of good and using them for evil purposes. Undoubtedly, countless wars have been fought in the name of God; torture, greed, lust and many many other abuses have justified, sanctioned or otherwise corrupted the power created by humanity's attempt to jointly worship and understand "God". To me, however, this does not discredit the use, encouragement or growth of organized religion. Rather, what the misuse of organized religion should show us is not that organized religion itself is bad but that it is a powerful force and, as it can be manipulated, we must be careful invoking the name of God in causes which require the use of destructive force against others.
As for the middle east, is it your assertion that organized religion is the root of its current problems?? I would suggest to you (as I thought you were trying to point out in other places in this thread) that the majority of organized islam opposes the radical fundamentalism which is the root of so much of the ME's problems right now. -- In fact, I think the ME demonstrate's my point exactly. It is not Islam that calls for the destruction of the US or for sunni to kill shi'a; it is the misuse of that religion by certain radical clerics and their followers that is the root of the region's problems. By taking sayings and lessons out of context and twisting them to selfish ends in an effort to gain temproral power, these small factions corrupt the essentially peaceful, positive message of Islam.
I also am afraid I disagree with you on T. Paine being a great mind. Undoubtedly, his "common sense" was a large motivitional factor in sparking the revolution. I read it ages ago, and as I recall, it struck me as rambling, reheated, less thought out Hume w/ a pre Marxian bent. I will look at it again. It is my understanding, however, that Paine was considered pretty much "out there" by the other founding fathers. Other then his pre-revolution writings, he was not much of a mover and shaker in early American politics. Both he and Sam (not John) Adams were pretty much marginalized after the war.
I may have AIM, I don't know - what is it?. I am a completely useless on that sort of stuff. If I can't point and click, I am pretty much lost. : )
|