(no subject)

[badstar]

Before I continue with my thought, I'd like to just state that in this post, I am in no way talking about groups of people doing "illegal", "antiethical" "immoral" or however else you want to say "bad" things. I'm simply talking about disagreements of theology. Also, for the sake of this discussion, all parties involved know that "interfaith" means "interfaith" and not "interdenominational".

okay...so if the word "interfaith" occurs in an organization's name, you assume it's going to be...an organization of multiple religions, right?

Now...tell me, how much sense does it make to say "We're going to stop being involved with your interfaith organization because folks of *another specific religion* are involved. Nevermind that we're all working on a non-religious issue that we all agree on. That religion is wrong and because they're there, we can't be involved."

Comments

[fuego.livejournal.com]

the only details that I left out were the name of the organization, the religion of the people that started the issue about folks of another religion being involved and the religion of the controversial folks. I actually don't know any more details than that, and while I have no problem commenting on the general situation, I don't feel that I should put any more details up here.

This might however make for interesting discussion material in one or two other communities.

[resident-geek.livejournal.com]

Easy: it's a cop-out. The people dropping out because of another religion's presence aren't actually there for interfaith reasons, and they a) are testing their position by forcing an ultimatum or b) earnestly operating in (excuse the pun) bad faith. Either way, fuck 'em.

[needa.livejournal.com]

At the same time, I don't think I could handle being in an "interfaith organization" with other members that were also members of a church that practices human baby sacrifice.

Yep, the example is over the top. Nevertheless, I can see it. I think it's almost certainly idiotic, but there are some valid, rational reasons for it sometimes.

[needa.livejournal.com]

Whoops! I missed the first paragraph on my first read (scrolled beyond it and didn't even know it was there). OK, now this sounds downright moronic. Sadly, not all that unusual in today's world....

[fuego.livejournal.com]

what kinda baffles me the most is that as i understand it, all parties were involved to begin with and after a period of time of- well, more than a year,though how much more i;m not sure- when the other people got their knickers in a twist.

[resident-geek.livejournal.com]

Your belated recognition that Renee was talking about strictly theological differences does underscore an important point: humans are easily capable of making those kinds of differences seem as dramatic as your hypothetical one.

If folks view another religion's members as intrinsically practicing some sort of demonic evil by applying its theological principles, then their views are ostensibly valid as long as they don't budge from their first principles. Regardless of the actual nature of the beliefs in question. (We could probably rattle off 15 actual instances of this in about 5 minutes.)

And that, to me, is the scariest thing about religious thinking.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

as I commented above, what really doesn't make sense to me is that all parties were involved, as i undersdtand it, for at least a year before one person said somethign to another person and next thing you know lots of other people are like "hey....yeah wait a minute, we can't be involved if they're involved.