|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:37 am
Imagine this.
If the Christian and Muslim religion were slightly altered in the beginning.
- no strong exclusivist orientation.
- no impetus to convert outsiders. ESPECIALLY no impetus to convert outsiders.
I bet pro-life wouldn't even exist.
Or, if pro-life existed, the numbers would be so small and the dialogue from the group would be so polite and articulate that it would be considered an eclectic fringe group, not a mob of ignorant fundie christians beating down highschoolers and women with signs of "fetus pictures".
If the entire religion was intact except the portion which tells people to convert outsiders, we'd have a religion that everyone could live with and a heck of a lot less wars and oppression.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:46 am
The reason why Christian and Muslim religions get singled out: all of the other religions don't care about converting you, rather it is your CHOICE to learn about it and decide if it's for you. Some of them are even inclusivist. Conversion tactics can sometimes be friendly, but there is no checks and balances in order to prevent the same tactics from getting ugly (bullying, harassing, wars, oppression, repression, suppression, withholding food from starving people to make them pray in another religion, etc).
In the pro-life case, it's about taking away a woman's right, and it's about bullying, harassing, and shaming people who don't agree with you into compliance.
It's easy to talk about religion in the abortion issue because the foundation of pro-life is emotional and religious. Pro-lifers need religions and emotions in order to make their claims for the "pwecious" fetii, even if they try to use data in their favor. But the pro-choicers don't NEED religions or emotions to validate their points. Pro-choicers CAN be personally religious or non-religious, but we know how to make our claims without forcing people to comply with our personal beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 9:44 am
The thing is, the kind of "conversion" that we see today is FAR from what was instructed originally. Because a text loses about 10% of its accuracy whenever it is translated, we have a very garbled version of what could be a very sensitive, caring book. Take into account whatever was ADDED at the command of whatever monarch had it translated, and there you go...we have our current CRAP.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that your vision may actually be of the true Christianity. Until someone learns ancient Aramaic,though, we won't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:37 am
Eh, I think that if it wasn't Christianity/Islam, it'd be something else telling women what to do with their bodies. You'd have to get rid of the whole male-domination thing, really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
