Religious differences

[BasouKazuma]

To start off, I made this thread to divert a religious dispute that was brewing in a thread in the gaming section .... which just shouldn't happen. So instead of dragging that thread far off topic, I will post what I was gonna post in that thread .... here .... below the link .... RIGHT DOWN THERE YOU BLIND *.... sorry .... that outburst was uncalled for ... :D :rotflmao:

[b]LINK TO OLD THREAD[/b] ---->[url]http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=48620[/url]

[b]WHAT HE SAID[/b]
[QUOTE=Gavin][SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

The correlation between violent video games and acts of violence in real life are at best supposition, there have been no clear studies done so far that link absolutely and beyond all doubt violence in videogames and violence in the real world. Some individuals are more prone to violent acts than others, it's a simple accepted fact, did Jack the Ripper have a nice game of Hitman before he went off and committed his horrific murders ? I think not. The fact is for years violent videogames have been used as scapegoats for society's ills as a whole, rather than simply addressing the problem most politicians seem to be content to sit back and say "It's all Rockstar's fault for creating these games".

That said however when games become violent to the point where it is not only horrific but gratuitous i.e. Manhunt, then there does need to be a bit of thought on the side of the developers. Violence by itself does not influence a person, if it did then anyone who played Grand Theft Auto would be out there beating some poor sod's head in for a few euro, or robbing a car or God forbid in a country where gun access is common killing someone. Half of these so called "GTA" influenced crimes are nothing but a defence solicitor telling his/her client that by pleading they were influenced by a violent videogame then it may generate publicity for the case and mercy of the individual because of they were being influenced by a force outside their control.

Long story short, there will always be violent people in our society, it is something brought from when human's were primitive savages and as such is in each an everyone of us. However as human being who are civilised for the most part we have common sense and a sense of what is right and wrong, watching violent movies may show acts of violence but normal people should be able to distinguish between that which is real and that which is not.[/SIZE]



[SIZE=1]As I said before this "replication of GTA" is for the most part utter crap, the fact that the child may have had a predilection for violence seems painfully obvious at this point. This person in the first place would have had to be clearly aware that what he was doing was [b]not[/b] the same as Grand Theft Auto, as any person with half a brain cell would be able to comprehend. Where were the boy's parents ? did he watch violent movies ? was he known to have a violent demeanour ? how was he proficient enough to discharge a police officer's weapon when there's a safety on all firearms ? A litany of questions which are not answered because it's easier to say he was influenced by a semi realistic videogame.

In the context of the man suing, was he directly affected by Rockstar and it's product as well as it's distributors ? or was he just looking for quick money by hoping on a band wagon. It's sheer stupidity, it's like suing McDonald's because their food is fattening, you have the choice not to buy it. As I said before, certain people are violent by nature, a proven psychological fact. Any act or action can provoke these people into acts of violence and as such blaming the catalyst rather than the person seems rather a rather imaginative choice.[/SIZE]







[SIZE=1]As a Roman Catholic I read those three responses with both amazement an utter disbelief. I'm going to address each of these people in turn to prove to them that religion is in fact [b]not[/b] the source of violent behaviour. I will be the first to admit that the Catholic Church was not the pillar of virtue it should have been for many centuries, abuses rampant in the Church stripped away it's core values because those in charge were not virtuous men. The Catholic Church is based on the teaching of Christ, love, compassion, generosity, decency, things most people regard as morally right because religion taught them that they were morally right. Where as greed, violence, hate and anger as seen as wrong because ? yes you guessed it, religion informed the people that such ideas, acts and emotions were wrong.

[B]Takuya[/b]
As I said, the Catholic Church has committed acts of violence in the past, but the Crusades were not instigated by the Church. Rather the Crusades were a geo-political war, rather than a religious was, the Holy Land was important not just for religious reasons but also military and defence reasons. The fact remains that wars between Powers in the Middle East and Europe were common place, the fact that these for both trade reasons and those of religion does not mean that religion itself was responsible. As I stated before, those acts are not at the core beliefs of any major religions, whether Catholic, Protestant or other Christian based, Islam, Judaism or other religions.

The Spanish Inquisition took place during what was basically a civil war, a religious civil war but a civil war none the less, Catholicism had been the only Christian religion and with the advent of Protestantism it was causing a schism is the Church. Violent acts took place on both sides because it was for better or worse a civil war between Catholics, however it was because of that civil war that the Church was able to finally get rid of it's crippling abuses. I'm not trying to justify that violence, it was wrong and any Catholic today would accept that, but are you seriously saying that violence that occurred during the American Civil War was not wrong because it wasn't religiously based. That those who owned slaves in the South and treated them as sub-human were not wrong because it wasn't religious based.

The fact is that those who commit acts of violence in the name of God are not acting in his name because they do not act as he has instructed them to. These are people called extremists and they exist in every major area of life, whether religious, political or ideological.

[b]BasouKazuma[/b]
That fact that you say that a religious person's beliefs are "[i]probably wrong[/i]" is half the problem. That fact that I believe what I believe in is right doesn't make me stubborn, it's simply the basis of faith. And to say that because religion is strong in many countries is some how a bad thing is something I feel deeply troubled. Your statement is (no offence) filled with such arrogance that it is rather amusing, you say probably wrong as though you have some inconclusive proof that it is wrong, but add in probably just in case you are wrong. I'm not trying to be offensive, but an atheist has no right to say that my beliefs are wrong or evil because they don't agree with them.

[b]Morpheus[/b]
No Morpheus, [I]fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to suffering[/I].

All jokes aside as I have state before religious beliefs are not responsible for hate, unless of course the core beliefs stipulates as such but no major religion of this world comes anywhere near such a belief system. [/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[b]WHAT I SAY![/b]

Oh sorry for not explaining myself more indept, i meant to say that part of their beliefs are probably wrong. Most religious people believe that everything in their religion is correct without question which is the wrong way to look at things. There are plenty of religions and there are plenty of people in those religions that believe that their religion is the 'right' religion. So how can one person possibly think that their religion is 100% right? I'm agnostic so I'm not against god, it's just that religious groups are too confined in their beliefs that they will not except anything else. You blame your stubbornness on faith, which is precisely the problem. It doesnt matter what the reason is, the fact is that religion makes you stubborn. Stubborness is what causes many conflicts, be it a small quarrel or a war. There needs to be more unification but religious beliefs are one of the biggest factors that divide us as humans. That is why I would like to see a world without religious groups, that's the only way we can truely come together especially since the barriors between races are really starting to crumble.

My parents are Pakistani so i know a lot about those countries which is why I brought up those paticular countries, if anyone was wondering. It's not like I'm your average dumb american who sees things like 9/11 and blame that part of the world for it all. I've been against extreme religious places long before 9/11 and for totally different reasons.

You really must not know much about middle eastern countries. Religion gets in the way. Being an agnostic "muslim" I know this better than most. Islamic people just can't understand why I am agnostic. They think it is wrong for me to be agnostic and not pray to allah every minute of the day. If i were white, they couldnt care less if i were agnostic but since that isn't the case, it is unthinkable for a person of 100% Islamic decent to become anything other than a muslim. This is because religion controls every aspect of their life back in Pakistan, India, etc. The kids back in the middle east arent given a chance to actually formulate their own opinions on god since they are all 'brainwashed' into believing in Islam and Islam only. This is not the proper way to raise a person. They aren't raised to understand and acknoledge others beliefs. There is only their religion and all other religions don't matter to them.

The middle east is the most extreme example, but similar things are present here in america, they are just not enforced as strictly. Most people follow the religion that their parents taught them. I have no respect for people who follow their parents religion without even considering other religions. Basically people like that have no clue what they are talking about. I thank god that my parents gave birth to me here in America. If i were born and raised in Pakistan, I would almost definitely become a muslim. In fact, if any of you were born and raised in Pakistan, you would've become muslims.That is how pointless religions are. They are mostly comprised of people who were forced into religion at an early age, when they weren't ready to make a good decision on religion. It's all a contest to see who can sign up the most people for their group. There's missionary work to "help" those less fortunate while brainwashing them with their one sided views. As if brainwashing them isn't the main point of these missionaries in the first place. The intentions of the missionaries themselves are good but the church system that sends them, is only truely interested in one thing.

Religion isn't the only source of violence. It is, however, one of the major contriburting factors to violence though, since most religious people are not willing to admit to themselves or to anyone else that their religion might be the wrong religion to follow.

[Retribution]

[SIZE=1]Reading your post agitated me quite a bit. Now I'm not going to start some uber-flame-war because of this, just express my erm... views on what you said.

[QUOTE=Gavin]Takuya
As I said, the Catholic Church has committed acts of violence in the past, but the Crusades were not instigated by the Church. Rather the Crusades were a geo-political war, rather than a religious was, the Holy Land was important not just for religious reasons but also military and defence reasons. The fact remains that wars between Powers in the Middle East and Europe were common place, the fact that these for both trade reasons and those of religion does not mean that religion itself was responsible. As I stated before, those acts are not at the core beliefs of any major religions, whether Catholic, Protestant or other Christian based, Islam, Judaism or other religions.[/QUOTE]
You must've gotten yourself slightly mixed up there. Last I checked, the Crusades were followed by the chant "God wills it!" They went to go slaughter the "heathens." And the main reason was because the Catholics were up in a fix that if they didn't control the Holy Land when the Apocalypse came about, they would all go to Hell because Jesus would not be pleased with them. They were expecting the Apocalypse to come at any time back then, so they went wild like bees in the fall. Their religious fervor tied together rivaling kingdoms, and they fought for the "Greater good of Christaindom" or some such cause. The Crusades were almost entirely fought for religious reasons.

[QUOTE]The Spanish Inquisition took place during what was basically a civil war, a religious civil war but a civil war none the less, Catholicism had been the only Christian religion and with the advent of Protestantism it was causing a schism is the Church. Violent acts took place on both sides because it was for better or worse a civil war between Catholics, however it was because of that civil war that the Church was able to finally get rid of it's crippling abuses. I'm not trying to justify that violence, it was wrong and any Catholic today would accept that, but are you seriously saying that violence that occurred during the American Civil War was not wrong because it wasn't religiously based. That those who owned slaves in the South and treated them as sub-human were not wrong because it wasn't religious based.[/QUOTE]
While I agree with your last two sentences, the rest I'm at-odds with. The Spanish Inquisition had almost nothing to do with Protestantism and the rise of it. It had to do with pushing the Muslims and Jews out of Spain to "purify" it. Queen Isabella started this 'civil war,' which was more of a slaughter than anything else. Religious intolerance drove her, and she sincerely believed that it was her duty to the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ that she drive out the "heathens" from Spain. There was really, nothing involving Protestants except they were forced to convert or die. Jews' businesses got stolen, and they were violently expelled. Those who didn't make it out in time or refused to leave were executed publicly at [i]auto-de-fe[/i]'s, or Acts of Faith.
[QUOTE]All jokes aside as I have state before religious beliefs are not responsible for hate, unless of course the core beliefs stipulates as such but no major religion of this world comes anywhere near such a belief system.[/QUOTE]
But I'm pleased to say that I do agree with this statement. Religious differences aren't the reason the world is so topsy-turvy. It's because of extremists who misinterpret their religion's message. All the 'mainstream' religions I've heard of are extremely peace-seeking, and if everyone followed their messages, the world would be perfect.

Religion DOES NOT cause stubborness. Unless your religion is saying that you must kill those who are not in agreement with you, the people are the problem, not the religion.[/SIZE]

[Morpheus]

I agree with Retri on all counts minus "the people are the problem, not the religion." The people are a problem, but without the religion, they aren't as much a threat. Most without the promise of Eternal life(and sex) in heaven would not do such things.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Morpheus']I agree with Retri on all counts minus "the people are the problem, not the religion." The people are a problem, but without the religion, they aren't as much a threat. Most without the promise of Eternal life(and sex) in heaven would not do such things.[/quote]
[SIZE=1]Yes, however, the message of such religions are, for all intents and purposes, 'pure.' It's the humans who are the weak link, and the extremists who want to kill for twisted reasons. Humans are the weakness in the cycle, not religion.

Actually, the concept of jihad is grotesquely twisted in modern day terms. Holy War was for self-defense purposes. It's sad that jihad now means war of suicide bombing or some other such nonsense.

Therefore, the promise of sex (I'm assuming you mean Islam) wasn't there to spur people to take over other lands. However, I'm not really well-educated in the affairs of Islam.

But I'll reiterate that humans are the weak-link in the cycle, and religious morals (love thy neighbor, etc) are good messages for the world, and it is not flaws in the religions that spur people to kill one another. More so primal instincts and a fanatical twist of what should be a pure message.[/SIZE]

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]If you wish to continue this debate I would be more than happy to, however I would ask that people refrain from simply flaming religions as a whole because of acts committed in the past.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=BasouKazuma][b]WHAT I SAY![/b]

Oh sorry for not explaining myself more indept, i meant to say that part of their beliefs are probably wrong. Most religious people believe that everything in their religion is correct without question which is the wrong way to look at things. There are plenty of religions and there are plenty of people in those religions that believe that their religion is the 'right' religion. So how can one person possibly think that their religion is 100% right? I'm agnostic so I'm not against god, it's just that religious groups are too confined in their beliefs that they will not except anything else. You blame your stubbornness on faith, which is precisely the problem. It doesnt matter what the reason is, the fact is that religion makes you stubborn. Stubborness is what causes many conflicts, be it a small quarrel or a war. There needs to be more unification but religious beliefs are one of the biggest factors that divide us as humans. That is why I would like to see a world without religious groups, that's the only way we can truely come together especially since the barriors between races are really starting to crumble.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]Basou again you have used the words "[I]probably wrong[/I]", the fact that you do not agree with the beliefs of my religion [or your own for that matter] does not entitle you to say that they are wrong. I believe my religion is the correct one because of faith, something you seem to lack or you would realise that I'm not being simply stubborn. Other people believe that their religion, whether Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism or other religions are right because of that same faith, are they wrong to believe that their religion is right simply because it does not precisely mirror another ? Of course they're not, their faith entitles them to believe that they are right.

As I said before, religions are not divisive, if that were true then all religious people would be out fighting against those who do not share their beliefs. The Pontiff in Rome would make speeches damning those who are not Catholic and demanding their deaths or conversion. I don't know about you but I certainly haven't heard Pope Benedict XVI make such remarks, nor his predecessor Pope John Paul II. It is a simple truth that such acts of religious violence are carried out by extremists, people who warp the teachings of their religion to suit their political agenda.

Humans are not divided because of religions, the preaching of love, respect and tolerance are central to all major religions regardless of whether or not they believe in the same God.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=BasouKazuma]My parents are Pakistani so i know a lot about those countries which is why I brought up those paticular countries, if anyone was wondering. It's not like I'm your average dumb american who sees things like 9/11 and blame that part of the world for it all. I've been against extreme religious places long before 9/11 and for totally different reasons.

You really must not know much about middle eastern countries. Religion gets in the way. Being an agnostic "muslim" I know this better than most. Islamic people just can't understand why I am agnostic. They think it is wrong for me to be agnostic and not pray to allah every minute of the day. If i were white, they couldnt care less if i were agnostic but since that isn't the case, it is unthinkable for a person of 100% Islamic decent to become anything other than a muslim. This is because religion controls every aspect of their life back in Pakistan, India, etc. The kids back in the middle east arent given a chance to actually formulate their own opinions on god since they are all 'brainwashed' into believing in Islam and Islam only. This is not the proper way to raise a person. They aren't raised to understand and acknoledge others beliefs. There is only their religion and all other religions don't matter to them.

The middle east is the most extreme example, but similar things are present here in america, they are just not enforced as strictly. Most people follow the religion that their parents taught them. I have no respect for people who follow their parents religion without even considering other religions. Basically people like that have no clue what they are talking about. I thank god that my parents gave birth to me here in America. If i were born and raised in Pakistan, I would almost definitely become a muslim. In fact, if any of you were born and raised in Pakistan, you would've become muslims.That is how pointless religions are. They are mostly comprised of people who were forced into religion at an early age, when they weren't ready to make a good decision on religion. It's all a contest to see who can sign up the most people for their group. There's missionary work to "help" those less fortunate while brainwashing them with their one sided views. As if brainwashing them isn't the main point of these missionaries in the first place. The intentions of the missionaries themselves are good but the church system that sends them, is only truely interested in one thing.

Religion isn't the only source of violence. It is, however, one of the major contriburting factors to violence though, since most religious people are not willing to admit to themselves or to anyone else that their religion might be the wrong religion to follow.[/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]It is truly disheartening to see how dead set against religion you are, and yet you hold this strange belief that you can be both agnostic and Muslim, when they are mutually exclusive. I was born a Roman Catholic, baptised when only a few weeks old and raised as a Roman Catholic, I have had my first Holy Communion, my Confirmation and go to Mass every Sunday. I was not brainwashed into becoming a Catholic, my parents shared their religion with me as a baby with my Baptism and I continue to believe in the Catholic faith.

The fact that you would accuse anyone who is part of the religion that they are part of, simply because their parents also practice that religion is sickening and I mean that. You demean the whole idea of faith with that statement, why then to people who have been Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus all their lives stay Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus after they are old enough to chose another religion ? [B]Faith[/B], faith in what they were raised in, what they believe in is right. Areas where a particular religion is strong, such as Catholicism in Ireland, or Islam in the Middle East is the result of people cherishing their beliefs and keeping them strong, not something to be regarded as evil or wrong.

And those Catholic Missionaries who are out in Africa helping the poor, giving them food, money, education and a life, are just doing it to rally more numbers to the Catholic faith ? It wouldn't have anything to do with alleviating the suffering of those who they encounter, and teaching them the faith that they believe in ? Again you insult those who share their beliefs with others, with your cynical and snide remarks simply because you disagree with their beliefs. [/SIZE]

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by [B]Gavin[/B]
[SIZE=1][I][B]Takuya[/B]
As I said, the Catholic Church has committed acts of violence in the past, but the Crusades were not instigated by the Church. Rather the Crusades were a geo-political war, rather than a religious one, the Holy Land was important not just for religious reasons but also military and defence reasons. The fact remains that wars between Powers in the Middle East and Europe were common place, the fact that these for both trade reasons and those of religion does not mean that religion itself was responsible. As I stated before, those acts are not at the core beliefs of any major religions, whether Catholic, Protestant or other Christian based, Islam, Judaism or other religions.[/I][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]I didn't explain that as well as I probably should have, I said the Crusades were geo-political wars and I meant it, but they were covered over as religious wars in order to stir up support for them. The fact that the major powers at that time were of opposing religions does not make the wars religious in nature. The first Crusade for example was in response to Seljuk Turks invasion of the Byzantine Empire, however Emperor Alexus I appealed to the Pope in Rome, who apart from having great military power, also held influence over the Kings of Europe. Unfortunately this war against an aggressor from outside Europe became a religious inspired war given time. And acts such as the massacring of Jews and Muslims because they were not Catholics is something most Catholic people would feel deeply saddened over.

The subsequent three Crusades were both political and religious in nature, the recapturing and holding of the Holy Land being the most important, again the political and economical sides to these wars are forgotten because it?s easier to simply label them as being purely religious. There was a religious segment to these wars, a large segment yes, but the only reason for the wars, no.

The Age of Discovery as it has been labelled, with the discovery of the Americas, the first voyage around the Cape of Good Hope, the voyages to circumnavigate the Earth were in response largely to European merchants being unable to get good safely through the Middle East from India and China. So the reason we don?t all believe the world is flat any more, or at least why people stopped believing the world was flat could be put down to religion.

The Renaissance flourished because many of it?s patrons were wealthy members of the Catholic Church, if not Pontiffs themselves, while these men, particularly some of the Pope were not righteous men, their legacy in terms of art, science, architecture and other advances made in The Renaissance can be seen today. The last two paragraphs are merely to show that religions in the Middle Ages were not entirely iniquitous things. [/SIZE]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Speaking of the Renaissance, don't forget that it was the Christian leadership who led the world into the stranglehold of the Victorian era, which society is still recovering from today.

Anyway, I don't know why any of this stuff is considered worthy of debate. If religion did not exist, greedy and power-hungry people would use other excuses to murder people for no real reason. Although I think that organized religion is generally a negative thing for various reasons, I am aware that the religion itself is nothing without people to interpret and enforce it.

So, what matters is not so much the religion and its philosophies. What matters is where and how they are applied and by whom. There are people who use religion for good things - for constructive things - and there are people (usually the most powerful), who use it for negative, hateful things. Doesn't matter if it's religion or politics or any other human invention - it can always be used as a tool for both constructive and destructive things.[/font]

[Decadence]

[quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1']The fact that you would accuse anyone who is part of the religion that they are part of, simply because their parents also practice that religion is sickening and I mean that. You demean the whole idea of faith with that statement, why then to people who have been Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus all their lives stay Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus after they are old enough to chose another religion ? Faith, faith in what they were raised in, what they believe in is right. [/SIZE][/quote]

[color=silver] The reason they stay the religion they were raised once they can choose their own relegion? you answered it you self, they were raised that way. I'm not saying they don't choose to be the relegion they were raised, or that people raised one relegion never change to another. But what I am trying to say is that humans fear change, and if they were raised one way they tend to stay that way. Lets, for example, replace relegion with rascism, why is it that people who are raised as rascist stay rascist, and people who arn't raised as rascist are rarely rascist? (this is an example, and I know there are people who were raised rascist and now arn't and people who wern't and now are). But again this isn't ment to offend, just to explain my view of what BasouKazuma is saying.[/color]

EDIT: sorry Retribution that was a misquote, i was doing this post quickly and copied the wrong name.

[Retribution]

[quote name='ShadO MagE][color=silver'] The reason they stay the religion they were raised once they can choose their own relegion? you answered it you self, they were raised that way. I'm not saying they don't choose to be the relegion they were raised, or that people raised one relegion never change to another. But what I am trying to say is that humans fear change, and if they were raised one way they tend to stay that way. Lets, for example, replace relegion with rascism, why is it that people who are raised as rascist stay rascist, and people who arn't raised as rascist are rarely rascist? (this is an example, and I know there are people who were raised rascist and now arn't and people who wern't and now are). But again this isn't ment to offend, just to explain my view of what BasouKazuma is saying.[/color][/quote]
[SIZE=1]You must've misquoted, as I never wrote that, nor do I share those views with Gavin.[/SIZE]

[Delta]

[COLOR=FireBrick][SIZE=1]Hrmm... Re the Crusades being fought for religious reasons: I'd have to disagree with that.

See, in the 9th century, the warrior class had [i]nothing[/i] to do. To pass time,they fought amongst themselves and terrorized everybody else. Since many warriors were already Christians by then, the Church set the Peace and Truce of God for certain times of the year. Suffice to say that it worked, but the warriors still had nothing to do.

Then a Byzantine kingdom (situated almost in between Europe and the Middle East) was attacked by a group whose members [i]happened[/i] to be Muslims. Recruitment was easy: them warrior bums (who *happened* to be Christians) seized the chance and went to war. See, the popular belief has it that the Christians and Muslims started beating the crap out of each other just because they had different religious beliefs. Truth is, the Christians and Muslims alike just banded with their own (birds of the same feather blah blah) and took the side of their kinsmen.

The role of the Pope was inconsequential, IMO. He was just there to absolve anyone who goes to war. A sort of an override to the Truce of God, really; the Crusaders could very well do without it.

GTA --> Crusades = WIN[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Gavin]

[quote name='ShadO MagE][color=silver'] The reason they stay the religion they were raised once they can choose their own relegion? you answered it you self, they were raised that way. I'm not saying they don't choose to be the relegion they were raised, or that people raised one relegion never change to another. But what I am trying to say is that humans fear change, and if they were raised one way they tend to stay that way. Lets, for example, replace relegion with rascism, why is it that people who are raised as rascist stay rascist, and people who arn't raised as rascist are rarely rascist? (this is an example, and I know there are people who were raised rascist and now arn't and people who wern't and now are). But again this isn't ment to offend, just to explain my view of what BasouKazuma is saying.[/color][/quote]

[SIZE=1]I'm not sure where to begin addressing that statement ShadO MagE, in one fell swoop you've compared racism to religion and echoed Basou in claiming that those who share the same faith as their parents are brainwashed and too afraid to go and change their faith because it's easier to stick the the one they were raised on. That may not have been your intention but it is basically what you have said.

I don't change my religion for the simple fact that I believe it's the correct one, just as those who believe in a different religion to mine believe that their's is the correct one. Again the operative word is belief, but fear and faith are very, very far from being the same thing, I can't explain faith properly because it's something that has to be experienced. I can't say any more than that because there isn't really anything more can be said about it, faith is faith and it's not something that can be defined. [/SIZE]