I understand your argument, just fully reject it.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 1:08 amThat's not quite my point. It's a possible point, but not the right one here.gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:35 pmfair point. you affirm good individuals acting morally in spite of thier culture/religion.
The point is this: ideologies incline people to move toward certain kinds of actions, and away from others. Some people do not take their ideology very seriously, and so may do something that is not consonant with their professed ideology. But anybody who takes the particularly ideology seriously, and tries to act consistently with what it teaches, will be inclined to do certain things.
That's what makes "what the ideology rationalizes" very important. It tells you what sort of "certain things" the ideology itself will incline people toward.
Quite the opposite.so doctrine/religion is irrelivant!
Doctrine tells us what the religion will exhort/encourage/direct people to do. Now, they may or may not follow through on it -- usually, some do, and some don't -- but the doctrine tells you what it will be. That is, if the religion or ideology is allowed to have the effect it desires upon ordinary folks, what will they end up being like?
And if the thing toward which the doctrine exhorts/encourages/ directs people is a BAD thing, then that tells you all you need to know about whether or not you're wise to tolerate the ideology. And if it's a GOOD thing, that tells you all you need to know about that.
French christians in algerian (Muslims) war, the former were full on more thuggish than the latter.
same with the Belgian Congo.
we will have to disagree on this mindset. I say character defines persons and religion is irrelivent, you say the opposite.
so be it.