[lbo-talk] You do realize, I hope, that religous expression isn't going anywhere...don't you?

[Carl Remick]

>From: Jeffrey Fisher <jeff.jfisher at gmail.com>
>
>On 5/10/05, Carl Remick <carlremick at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Anything that can be done to minimize the role of religion in politics 
>is
> > all to the good.  Disputes driven by material concerns can be grubby and
> > rancorous, but ultimately they lend themselves to negotiated settlements
> > where each side gains something.  Religious disputes, however, tend to 
>be
> > zero-sum games where you either win or lose.  This breeds vicious
> > antagonisms with often lethal results.
>
>this strikes me as a rather bizarre set of gross generalizations with
>not very much substance to back it up. additionally, it sure looks
>like you're making the battle over religion in the public sphere
>something which cannot be negotiated, a zero-sum, win-lose
>proposition. is that a religious attitude toward religion in the
>public sphere?

Sad to say, both religious expression and this thread aren't going anywhere.

Religion has fueled much of history's most celebrated slaughter:  the 
medieval Crusades, the European Protestant-Catholic wars of the 16th-17th 
centuries, recent conflict between Hindus and Moslems on the Indian 
subcontinent, fighting between Buddhists and Hindus in Sri Lanka, the 
mishegaas that is Northern Ireland, etc. ad nauseam.

I am curious what evidence you would care to cite of religion's ability to 
promote universal understanding and peace.

Carl