(January 31, 2009 at 6:07 pm)leo-rcc Wrote:(January 31, 2009 at 5:54 pm)bozo Wrote:(January 31, 2009 at 5:44 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: It's both an ideology, both are trying to change society in their favor by means of force. Just because one does not have religious background is not sufficient to rule it as "different". For the better is a subjective term anyway.
I'm not in favour of changing society on the basis of religious faith, they're all crap. Whereas attempts to create a better society through revolution ( where the regime to be overthrown was seriously evil ) is ok by me.
I don't think anyone here on this forum except maybe psalm23 and that other guy that disagree that religion is crap. However these fundamentalists are no less sincere of their perception that they are changing society for the better than the revolutionists.
And again, evil regime is an subjective term. Sure the monarchy in France really had its head up its ass and can be accused of ignorance and stupidity, but evil is yet to be proven.
The revolution wasn't primarily about the monarchy. Indeed, the royal family was only despatched after much debate. It was the " ancien regime " that was considered evil and needing to be overthrown.
A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
