So, even within Christianity, the Ten Commandments aren't precisely the same across traditions — the text is translated and even *numbered* differently.
This law appears to mandate the KJV version — a Bible translation entire Christian traditions reject. apnews.com/article/loui...
Except that they don't actually live by their commandments. They'll happily kill, lie, steal, commit adultery, rape, and incest, make graven images, work on Sunday, swear, and covet their neighbour's stuff. They just want to fool people into thinking they believe this garbage in order to get votes.
That's still Christianity. No Christian lives by all the commandments, and it's long been widely accepted doctrine that they will be saved through faith. They are living according to the expectations of their Christian community and traditions.
The fact that another person's religious convictions and practice don't make sense or are repugnant to you doesn't mean it's not real religion. Neither "religious" nor "Christian" is a synonym for "good."
It's not really anything to do with whether or not it makes sense or is repugnant: lots of beliefs (not just religious ones) make no sense (flat-earthism) and may even be repugnant (Nazism). It's that people are credulous enough to encourage these beliefs to flourish despite the damage they do.
Exactly. The gullible we have with us always. But that doesn't excuse the Gadarene rush to willingly accord uncritical credence to the charlatans on the spurious grounds that they need not practice anything at all of what they preach, but merely pretend to practice it with no intent otherwise.
The mistake here is assuming an essentialist standard for proper practice of religion. That's an impulse that comes out of 19th c Protestant study of religion, applying a Weberian model to a vast array of traditions.
There's no "uncritical credence" being afforded--this is fundamentally critical.
To clarify something upthread: when I said "doesn't make sense to you" I meant that they practice their religion in a way that is fundamentally unlike what you think of as "religion"--not that you're unable to understand it.
Oh yes, understood. I was concerned that people who shelter under the umbrella of a religion for political reasons, but deliberately ignore and disobey everything that the religion is supposed to stand for, are being generously accorded the status of adherent, in the name of some bogus "freedom".
Not really. The lack of critical analysis is a serious error. It's all a part of the US "freedom" which allows anyone to unassailably claim to be anything (in religion and elsewhere), and then behave in a manner contrary to their claim; and no-one is allowed to call them out because of "freedom".
That problem is actually a general issue of deference toward religion, because when the state gets into the business of evaluating the sincerity or internal consistency of adherents' beliefs and issuing exemptions accordingly, we're in incredible danger.
Exactly. So many people make burnt offerings and then consume them -- while I find that practice barbarous and cannibalistic, these peole need to see the error of their ways on their own. Threatening them with forced conversion or death is not an effective solution.
