Absolutely.
Also, the problem with scholastic thinking and this includes people I see as more “enlightened” religious thinkers is that they always need to rely on something to prove their points to others. Like “This Chapter of the Holy book shows us that….”, “This act of the prophet demonstrates that…” etc. etc.
Auguste Compte’s scientific method which is said to have its roots in medieval Arabia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of...fic_method) is much more simple and reliable as a method of uncovering the truth. Also a philosophical way of thinking with a critical mind is much more effective in many areas. The first think that a real education system has to do is to free our minds in that way. First you need an open and sharp edged Buddhi as the Hindus call it (Buddhi = mind – etymologically it means “cutting tool”).
Then, you may or may not start a journey into the realm of spirit and that’s a very personal issue.
What I’m talking about here is more of a legal issue. I definitely think that a religious figure who is acting as an agitator in that way was a much less common occurrence in the past. And I believe that it’s the responsibility of anyone who sees himself or herself as a religious figure or authority to intervene and try to calm things down when he/she starts to observe that people are becoming agitated and are about to do stupid things. I see this as my right as a citizen. Anyone who is not able or is not able to display that level of responsibility toward his/her community should not even aspire to become a religious personality.
Otherwise the content of their sermon or preaching etc. is another issue. I openly do not listen to the preaching of any religious figure anymore. And I wouldn’t do that in the past either. These are thing that rely of the charisma and personality of the preacher and I think that not everyone is able to be a good preacher anyway.
But inciting people to hatred and vandalism. I think this should be punishable by law.
Also, the problem with scholastic thinking and this includes people I see as more “enlightened” religious thinkers is that they always need to rely on something to prove their points to others. Like “This Chapter of the Holy book shows us that….”, “This act of the prophet demonstrates that…” etc. etc.
Auguste Compte’s scientific method which is said to have its roots in medieval Arabia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of...fic_method) is much more simple and reliable as a method of uncovering the truth. Also a philosophical way of thinking with a critical mind is much more effective in many areas. The first think that a real education system has to do is to free our minds in that way. First you need an open and sharp edged Buddhi as the Hindus call it (Buddhi = mind – etymologically it means “cutting tool”).
Then, you may or may not start a journey into the realm of spirit and that’s a very personal issue.
What I’m talking about here is more of a legal issue. I definitely think that a religious figure who is acting as an agitator in that way was a much less common occurrence in the past. And I believe that it’s the responsibility of anyone who sees himself or herself as a religious figure or authority to intervene and try to calm things down when he/she starts to observe that people are becoming agitated and are about to do stupid things. I see this as my right as a citizen. Anyone who is not able or is not able to display that level of responsibility toward his/her community should not even aspire to become a religious personality.
Otherwise the content of their sermon or preaching etc. is another issue. I openly do not listen to the preaching of any religious figure anymore. And I wouldn’t do that in the past either. These are thing that rely of the charisma and personality of the preacher and I think that not everyone is able to be a good preacher anyway.
But inciting people to hatred and vandalism. I think this should be punishable by law.