>Rich, great post!
>
>In the interests of argument I'm going to disagree with some of your points ;-) :
>
>>>The True Believers of any dogma cannot, almost by definition, admit any other version might have validity. Having found "The Truth" (as opposed the "Their Own Truth") they are therefore obligated to promulgate it so that others will see it (benefit from it) as well. This has been true of religions, political ideologies, economic movements, racial theories, etc.
>
>Sounds compelling... but is it safe to extrapolate a medieval-sounding "True Believer of any dogma" onto everybody who professes a faith in 2004?

No, and I didn't intend to. "The True Believers of any dogma cannot, almost by definition, admit any other version might have validity." I'll stand by this statement. I'll back off to the extent that not all "True Believers" exhibit the same behavior patterns. My sister-in-law believes that I will go to hell because I have never found Christ. She knows that her father is in hell because he was not a regular church-goer. Nevertheless, she believes in free will and has never tried to convert me beyond reasonable and rational discussions of our respective beliefs. She's saddened by my fate, of course, but hasn't tried excessively hard to "save me from myself" because it is my choice to make.

Perhaps I painted with too broad a brush, but my intent was to try to explain what motivates those zealots into their behaviors.

>
>There are degrees of everything, including missionary fervor. There are also "missionaries" who labor in schools and hospitals to assist the disadvantaged without a promulgative murmur. Many moons ago I worked in one of those places on the Mozambique border. It was all funded by a church group I'd never heard of in the midwest, but there was no priest/pastor/whatever on the mission and absolutely no attempt to convert the heathens- we were fairly preoccupied trying to keep them alive. I think that is a more realistic face of modern religion. I don't recall such a hospital set up and funded by atheists or agnostics.
>
Your comments about the missionaries and their motives is well put. I won't deny that religion frequently provides a motivation to do good - and to do it for its own sake and not the advancement of the religion. Again, I'll point out that I was trying to explain the rationale behind those who are a little more "agressive" in their approach.

I can't speak from personal experience but I can't believe that there are not equivalent hospitals, etc. sponsored by groups with no religious motivation. Perhaps you would consider the work done by Peace Corps volunteers as an equivalent, non-religiously based, effort?


>>>Which is why I understand (although as one who has not yet found "The Truth" I certainly don't approve) the prosletysing ferver of Christians, Muslims, Marxists/Capitalists, and Democracyists even to the point of conversion by force.
>
>We can agree that many/most religions and political structures have skeletons in their closets. But can you name a modern democratic nation where religious "conversion by force" has existed in living memory?

Certainly not a "religious conversion by force" from a democratic society. But I think it's fair to impute that to many of the Islamic extremists in today's world. And since I equate economic and political motivations I will point out that not all Marxists were power-hungry communists seeking imperial expansion. Many (at least originally) were idealists who sincerely believed that they were advancing the cause of all mankind. And without claiming an exact analogy, I believe that a great deal of what motivates current American policy in Iraq is the spreading of the gospel of democracy.

>>>It is "wrong for religious people to claim ownership of morality" because it assumes that moralilty is derived from religion.
>
>Most would say it is derived from God, from a god, from self... not usually from the religion itself.
>
I think that's a quibble since religion is frequently looked upon as an interpretation of God's desires.

>>>One of my truths is that things are right or wrong because THEY ARE, not because "God said so." I believe that there is a universality about morality that is comletely independent of religion.
>
>That's exactly what Adolph Hitler thought. No I am not comparing you to him, I am pointing out that once you step outside religion, "it makes sense to me" is a poor predictor of moral behavior. Almost every crime is committed by somebody who thought it made sense at the time.
>
Then why are so many non-religious people moral and why have so many immoral acts been committed in the name of religion?

>>>Along with EVERYBODY else, I am willing to impose my version of morality on the rest of you. I don't have a problem with the idea of the "Religious Right" trying to impose their version of morality on the rest of society. I don't have a problem with the "Liberal Left" trying to impose their version. I do have strong opinions on the veracity of their moral code, but they certainly have the right to try to make it universal, just as I do.
>
>Many would argue that nobody has the right to try to force political or religious structure onto unwilling others.

If your moral code disallows murder and you make a law against it, haven't you forced your beliefs upon others? The real question is where the line is drawn. Murder?? Stealing?? Rape?? Libel?? Abortion?? Bigamy?? Homosexuality?? Assisted Suicide?? Prostitution?? Drug use (sale is a different question)??

They all certainly have the right to try to pass laws which conform to their own moral beliefs.

Second point. Then why are we forcing our political beliefs onto Iraq?

>We should be grateful that our forebears adopted political and societal rules that allow us to speak and believe as we wish.
>

AMEN!



>>>My own views were best expressed by Robert Heinlein in his novella Coventry. (To paraphrase)"Things are immoral which cause harm to others."
>
>Who could disagree with Heinlein? ;-)
>
>>>Therefore, I agree with the "Religious Right" about stealing, murder, rape, forgery, libel, etc. I disagree with them about things like bigamy/polyandry, prostitution, homosexuality, etc.
>
>Surely that is political rather than religious? The "religious right" is powerless unless people vote for them, no matter how fervent they are. If they gain power they are more fairly described as "the majority".

Exactly my point. They have the right to try to convince the majority of the correctness of their views and pass laws supporting them if they can be that convincing. As does the "Liberal Left" and as do you and I.