I meant whatever seems to be correct gramaticaly and logically. But see below for one continuing possible disagreement.
Richard Henninge wrote:
John Wager wrote:
On a more political point, the main problem with all kinds of
"fundamentalisms" is that they seem to require everyone to
subscribe to a system of beliefs that everyone in fact do[es] not
subscribe to. If 100% of a population believed in Islam, it might
be quite democratic to make law entirely based on the Qu'ran. But
if even a few citizens do not subscribe to that system of beliefs,
until they do, the foundation for law should be some system that
does not require their buying into that religion. Take your pick
here: contract theory, or human nature, or some other
justification for government, but the result is the same: There
should always be a provision in law so that non-believers in a
system of belief are not required by law to act as if they do.
Buddhism isn't very conducive to fundamentalism, but the three
traditions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism all seem to be much
more prone to succumbing to ***the false inclusiveness of law over
belief***. This is really a very astounding position, when you
think about it, because the whole idea of "revealed" truth present
in these three traditions says that God has revealed in a special
way to only some people certain fundamental truths or duties. If
fundamentalists really took revelation seriously, they would not
want those to whom God has not (yet) revealed these truths to be
held accountable ***for*** them, yet time and again these
fundamentalists violate their own concept of "revelation" rather
than practice the tolerance that such a conception of revelation
would require.
Didn't you mean, John, just the opposite of what you said, i.e. that
the conduciveness of Islam, Christianity and Judaism to fundamentalism
is due to their traditions' seeming to be "much more prone to
succumbing to..."--not-- "the false inclusiveness of law over belief,"
but to "the false inclusiveness of _belief over law_"?
One MIGHT expect fundamentalists to hold to the priority of belief over law, but the claim that ALL are bound by the law when it is based on one particular revelation seems to me more a denial of the centrality of revelation rather than a denial of the power of law. The paradox is that fundamentalists SEEM to say that revelation is central, but by making laws binding on all that are based on that, they promote the law as actually more important than revelation. It doesn't matter whether God has revealed something to me; I still must obey the law based on the revelation to someone else. Revelation isn't so central after all; law is.
Secondly, a quibble on a lower--merely grammatical--plane, in your saying that "[i]f fundamentalists really took revelation seriously, they would not want those to whom God has not (yet) revealed these truths to be held accountable _for_ them [my emphasis]," didn't you mean "_to_ them," since "for them" makes it sound as if they were responsible for them rather than just "responsive," à peu près, _to_ them?Richard Henninge University of Mainz ------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3284 - Release Date: 11/27/10
