My comment on a NY Times Article:

This is a good article!

Agreed that this country is becoming more and more like a theocracy now
when these religious zealots disregard other people's beliefs and tramp
on their rights. That is fundamentally wrong and must be stopped by all
means necessary. The very term "religious right" in itself suggests
that the separation between government and church is at peril. It
indicates that the government is heavily incluenced, if not owned by
this group of people, which are pushing this country toward something
like what we know about the Dark Middle Ages of Europe (Of course, back
then people didn't talk about democracy that much so they actually had
some excuse.)

However, i think religion is in itself exclusive to other religions and
atheism. Therefore if a religious believer is moderate enough to
tolerate other beliefs, that very tolerance undermines his own belief.
I can't imagine a Christian worshipping his God and a Hindu worshipping
his own God(s) side by side. If they do, it implies that they
acknowledge the existence of other gods, which is in conflict with their
holy scripts and creeds.

Therefore, only the religious extremists that deny everything else are
the true believers but apparently they are threatening the fundamentals
on which this society is based. So my conclusion is that religion is not
compatible with democracy by nature. From a sociological perspective,
myth and religions are the products of people trying to cope with the
unpredictable nature and has its positive effects. However, as society
evovles, the role that religion can play is less predictable, especially
when carried out in full strength and with blind faith.

If there are anyone can be both genuinely religious and moderate, they
must be those who hold their thoughts/views in private. Their attitude
to the non-believers should be "do as you wish" and keep the other half
of the sentence to themselves "but personally i know you will go to
hell." In this way, nonbelievers will have their life undisturbed and
the believers happy enough with the thought they are on their way to
heaven.


NY Times.com: What's Going On?
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:54:47 +0000

March 29, 2005

What's Going On?
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Democratic societies have a hard time dealing with extremists in their
midst. The desire to show respect for other people's beliefs all too easily
turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those
whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself.

We can see this failing clearly in other countries. In the Netherlands, for
example, a culture of tolerance led the nation to ignore the growing
influence of Islamic extremists until they turned murderous.

But it's also true of the United States, where dangerous extremists belong
to the majority religion and the majority ethnic group, and wield great
political influence.

Before he saw the polls, Tom DeLay declared that "one thing that God has
brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is
going on in America." Now he and his party, shocked by the public's negative
reaction to their meddling, want to move on. But we shouldn't let them. The
Schiavo case is, indeed, a chance to highlight what's going on in America.

One thing that's going on is a climate of fear for those who try to enforce
laws that religious extremists oppose. Randall Terry, a spokesman for Terri
Schiavo's parents, hasn't killed anyone, but one of his former close
associates in the anti-abortion movement is serving time for murdering a
doctor. George Greer, the judge in the Schiavo case, needs armed bodyguards.

Another thing that's going on is the rise of politicians willing to violate
the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious
right.

Everyone knows about the attempt to circumvent the courts through "Terri's
law." But there has been little national exposure for a Miami Herald report
that Jeb Bush sent state law enforcement agents to seize Terri Schiavo from
the hospice - a plan called off when local police said they would enforce
the judge's order that she remain there.

And the future seems all too likely to bring more intimidation in the name
of God and more political intervention that undermines the rule of law.

The religious right is already having a big impact on education: 31 percent
of teachers surveyed by the National Science Teachers Association feel
pressured to present creationism-related material in the classroom.

But medical care is the cutting edge of extremism.

Yesterday The Washington Post reported on the growing number of pharmacists
who, on religious grounds, refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control or
morning-after pills. These pharmacists talk of personal belief; but the
effect is to undermine laws that make these drugs available. And let me make
a prediction: soon, wherever the religious right is strong, many pharmacists
will be pressured into denying women legal drugs.

And it won't stop there. There is a nationwide trend toward "conscience" or
"refusal" legislation. Laws in Illinois and Mississippi already allow
doctors and other health providers to deny virtually any procedure to any
patient. Again, think of how such laws expose doctors to pressure and
intimidation.

But the big step by extremists will be an attempt to eliminate the
filibuster, so that the courts can be packed with judges less committed to
upholding the law than Mr. Greer.

We can't count on restraint from people like Mr. DeLay, who believes that
he's on a mission to bring a "biblical worldview" to American politics, and
that God brought him a brain-damaged patient to help him with that mission.

What we need - and we aren't seeing - is a firm stand by moderates against
religious extremism. Some people ask, with justification, Where are the
Democrats? But an even better question is, Where are the doctors fiercely
defending their professional integrity? I think the American Medical
Association disapproves of politicians who second-guess medical diagnoses
based on video images - but the association's statement on the Schiavo case
is so timid that it's hard to be sure.

The closest parallel I can think of to current American politics is Israel.
There was a time, not that long ago, when moderate Israelis downplayed the
rise of religious extremists. But no more: extremists have already killed
one prime minister, and everyone realizes that Ariel Sharon is at risk.

America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives
who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates
take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen
here.