"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote in message news:497cdd31@news.povray.org...
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message

> > I disagree. The refusal of jews and muslims to eat pork or obeying
> > Ramadan or sabbath is firmly established in the books. Your point that
> > the books were written by humans may be true but is irrelevant. For the
> > believers it is *provably* part of their religion.
> > OTOH you have things like women to have to wear hats on sunday when
> > going to church as is the practice in some circles in the Netherlands.
> > This has no basis in the script but rests on an interpretation of (IIRC)
> > Timothy 2:9-10 (no don't ask me how they do that). The common cultural
> > idea that women have to wear headscarfs or worse also rests on such an
> > interpretation of similar words by Mohamed.

> It's also written in the "books" that it's just dandy to kill infidels,
> homosexuals... etc. And that headscarves may not be in the books doesn't
> mean Muslims don't feel as strongly about it as pork. Either way, granting
> rights, priviledges and exceptions based on certain view that some people
> wrote or did not write in some books, and inconsistenly at that, at some
> point in history, is a bad, bad idea.

Also, of course, such a "book based" policy would arbitrarily discriminate
against cultures whose traditions are more oral than written. The judicial
system should not be in the business of deciding which religions are more
legitimate than others, or which parts of a religion (pork) are from god,
which parts (headscarves) from man.

Post a reply to this message