Re: Fred Schlomka's comment on my comment

Submitted by Ted Hewlett (Canada), Jul 3, 2006 at 16:14

Suppose you had written "In the ___Republic it is actrually illegal to try to convince anyone to change his party allegiance. Not a bad idea considering the draconian measures used in the recent past to impose political ideologies on a populace."

Well, it is hard to imagine a true democracy existing where there was no debate about political ideas because that might result in conversion to a different ideology.

Why the difference in people's attitude towards religious debate and conversion? It seems to me to indicate either an indifference to the importance of religion (with the resultant attitude that debate and attempts to change people's mind are useless in religion) or it results from a very totalitarian attitude ("My beliefs are right and the only ones that the state should recognize.")

"Muslims and Jews" you say "have generally co-existed with other religions under their control" Well, Jews in the past thousand years at least, till the establishment of the modern state of Israel, have hardly ever been in a position to control other religions. And the so-called tolerance of Muslim societies was only shown to the extent of allowing other religions to exist, not generally full tolerance.

It is rather disturbing to find people like Mr. Schlomka who are ready to throw overboard the most fundamental principles of liberty when their particular ox is not being gored.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".