Posted by Dr. Bob on April 6, 2004, at 21:13:46
In reply to please re-phrase that Dr. Bob » Dr. Bob, posted by rayww on April 6, 2004, at 10:11:39
> I think (ideally) we would have a common understanding of "tolerance" and "duties of citizenship." The duties, for example, may be quite different in some religions than others.
>
> SharI think "citizenship" refers to the state, not the church...
> Perhaps you could soften that a bit... And it doesn't seem quite... civil... to tell someone their deeply felt religious beliefs make them unfit for society.
>
> Dinah> It seems a bit too absolute to me... I think it leaves too much to be misunderstood in terms of tone.
>
> noa> it just strikes a tone that's sort of scary/retro/Puritan. And I wonder... what's the point of having it there? Sort of a precedent for the faith board posting policy? Why is it needed? Dr Bob's wording of the policy was better than that.
>
> tabitha> I totally agree with the concept and the thinking behind it, but the wording has a little to be desired.
>
> raywwHmm, I know what you all mean about the tone...
I don't think the implication is that they're "unfit", just that those beliefs are less, well, conducive to harmony. Did you notice that the title of that section is Civil Religion?
Right, I thought it supported the posting policy. And support like that is nice, even if the wording could be more civil. What if I added a little apology:
> Sorry about the tone of the above, but I think it does support the posting policy here...
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:333048
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040307/msgs/333528.html