I already explained "how so."
Meta: I must have missed it. I guess I'm just not as sharp as I think I am.
The Communist of the USSR, China, Cambodia and the Nazi's were as bad as any relgious state in terms of repression and horror and death.
Meta: No argument there. A religious state is indeed very similar to Communist of the USSR, China, Cambodia and the Nazi's.
Which is kinda what I mean by "natonal level"--you equate relgion as being a bane--I am just pointing out that nations that are violently opposed to any relgious expression have no room to to claim a better system.
Meta: Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself.
Not my place to explain or act as the apologist for folks that choose to use "faith" rather than moden science to cure their ills.
Meta: This goes beyond mere religious tolerance to an area of ignorance which harms others, A child has no say in what the parent does or does not on "faith." Yet the Child must suffer the consequences.
What I am saying is that I have a problem interfering in personal choice.
Meta: I disagree. I would advocate non-interference for anything and everything only if the actions which I was being tolerant of did not affect others negatively, cause violence or suffering, or trampled upon the basic human rights of others.
In other words, I'm OK with people having religious views of their own, and worshiping as they see fit in whatever way, and expressing their faith how they choose UNLESS that expression or action causes harm to others or puts others at risk for harm, or negates basic human rights. I think this is reasonable.
We punish those that allow kids to die by cults that believe in not using modern medicine.
Meta: And as well we should. Belonging to a specific religious group does not negate one's duty as a citizen to abide by the law of the land.
But we don't and should not have the right to interfer with a citizens right to refuse drugs for whatever relgious reason they choose.
Meta: If you mean an adult, yes. I agree with you. However if you mean a child, or the infirm, or the mentally disabled, I disagree. When faced with a choice of life or death, and the adult or child cannot make a mature choice due to age lack of or mental faculty, we must always choose in the best interest of the patient.
Fundamentally the USA is about rights--the right to make descions concerning your OWN person----even if they are bad decisons--even if it kills you.
We don't stop people from smoking and a wide range of extreme sports.
Meta: You don't know how much I wish that were true.
The wicked leader is he who the people despise. The good leader is he who the people revere. The great leader is he who the people say, 'We did it ourselves.'
Places like Mali are not voting republics with laws to protect people that express differing view points.
Thats the fault of repressive governements.
You can't blame ALL religion for the offensives of extremeists.
Meta: I question modern day humans adherence to religious mythos, and it appears that when people who are strongly religiously like minded and united under an unwavering, unchanging, rigid and are unquestioning belief system as they march forward, violence, death and destruction has always been the result.
In this case its not a question of "challanging" the validity of peopels beliefs.
Its using the courts and legal process to make people behave in the manner in which the guy chooses.
Meta: If one feels that people should not attempt to sway others to their mindset, then I would submit that this is a highly naive view of reality. All human beings will at one time or another, some more than most, will attempt in their interaction to convince others that their way is the right way. It's that what we are doing right now with this thread? It is human nature to do so. Humans need to do this in order to form cohesiveness. We are tribal by nature. We usually don't take readily to a change in ideas, once established. That's the nature of a paradigm.
But I digress. I don't see where he is personally trying to force anything, save for the law, as written by the people, to be enforced. If the Church broke the law, then they should be held to account like anyone else.
Just like the ID'ers tried to do here.
Meta: Right! And they lost.
This is also where you conflate the issue again, you equate any relgious beleif in NOT also embracing science and reason.
Meta: By most religious creation mythos, science and the word of God are not compatible.
Either God created the world in 7 days, or he did not.
If he did not, then the bible, as a word of God, is false, and as such, so is the concept.
By the way, if anyone ever doubted the most voluminous and deep concepts of murder, tyranny, torture, hatred, intolerance, racism, and horror are not in the bible just about everywhere, people should read it again more closely.http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
And thats just not the case, many great scientists were people of faith.
Meta: Also quite true.
The two ideas are not mutually contridictory.
Meta: Unless one practices their own brand of religion, and in the case of Christianity, one would have to practice a variety which takes what they want, and dismisses the rest, which of course would be against the concept of Christian dogma.
Iran is one thing--and to be really blunt their embracing a fanatical relgious ideology is not stopping them from making some dangerous scientifc advances now is it?
Meta: Right you are. Which exposes the supreme hypocrisy which religion and faith possess.
EXCEPT the goober using the courts to try and enforce his personal set of beliefs on everyone else.
Meta: Laws which are pre-written would not be bending to his will, but the will of the people who had previously passed such laws. If his argument has no merit, it will be dismissed, plain as that.
Please note-- that its NOT the christains going to court to enforce THEIR belief structure on HIM now is it?
Meta: Interesting that you say that considering what we have just seen regarding ID Vs Evo, and not to mention that Christian groups habitually engage in lawsuits in attempts to enforce their personal beliefs onto the populace even when no such laws exist.