Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster
So its only wealthy and popular religions that bother you (and even then, just those that actually use those resources). I will assume you don't really mean to add as an element a professed desire to subjugate the world, as I am sure you would be happy to impute such a desire if the wealth and popularity of the movement rose sufficiently high.
|
As to the first sentence, poor and small religions don't attract my attention at least unless they try to convert an immediate family member, and I've not yet experienced this.
As to the second, I have conceded that I think religion is for now relatively harmless to our republican system and will be for the I think foreseeable future. Credit for this, however, goes to the inherent good "fruits" of the republican system and its resulting popularity, not to religion per se. My question about Romney, I have effectively conceded, was more rhetorical than anything else. Despite that he most likely coundn't turn our country into a Mormon theorcracy even if he tried, and likely wouldn't want to because he appears to believe more strongly in our republican system than Mormonism, my rhetorical question is still very much worth bearing in mind, always. Moreover, during millenia when the world was bereft of civil liberties or republican governments religion nevertheless served as an important transmitter of knowledge (in certain cells) and added its own positive artistic and philosopical stamp. As I have said in other threads, religion's saving grace is as a focal point and means for the rise of cultures. Finally, there are, for example, mainline Protestant religions that have ceased to include covering the earth and bending every mind to their dogma as part of their mission statement but nevertheless remain relatatively popular and rich.
So I think your statements about religions bothering me for this or that reason are unduly simplistic and absolute for these and other reasons.