fresco wrote:Vikorr,
The historical links are irrelevant. What matters is the tolerance of "arbitrary evidence" or "selective dismissal of evidence". Once this principle is socially accepted and substituted with the blatantly hypocritical labels of "mutual respect" or "tolerance of others beliefs" we sow the seeds of a pathogen, just like "social drug taking" has its inevitable consequences. Harris argues that because advanced weaponry now lies within the grasp of extremists, religion can no longer be dismissed as a fairly innocuous recreational drug.
So what you are arguing is that Christians tolerating their own beliefs (sound odd?) and atheists tolerating Christian beliefs - sows the seeds that allows Jihadi's to exist?
This hypothesis, while valid enough if flexed into a theoretical setting, would ignore the divergence of countries that each religion lives in, the circle of influence this idea can achieve, and even if it did achieve a large circle of influence, there would still be, within it's borders, sub cultures outside of its influence. In other words, it is an unworkable model. Theoretically sound, but unworkable.
