Ataman
pre 12 godina
I don't have a Mufti...I don't need one. For me all religious leaders are a waste of space and money of couse.
I just don't want them to get involved in politics....because it is not nice to see a burned down church or mosque....You get my point this time?
(EA, 12 April 2012 19:47)
Now I understand what you saying and disagree.
Reasons:
#1: "all religious leaders are a waste of space and money of couse". Incorrect because in many countries they provide a pretty much respected backbone to the politics. Neutal example: Bhutan, Thailand, etc. Their role is not necessary progressive that is true but the coin has two sides.
#2: Under normal circumstances religious leaders being involved in politics SHOULD NOT result in burned down church or mosque (or temple). If that happens it is a sign of barbarism. See destroyed temples / monasteries in Tibet (intentionally staying on the neutral ground).
If you condemn what Chinese Red Guards did in Tibet during "cultural revolution" than you have to condemn 2004 of course. Regardless, is Dalai Lama (or SPC) spearheading the progress or not (probably not, religious institutions are conservative).
#3: At certain times being progressive is "in", at certain times being conservative is "in". We can agree, both Golden Horde and Ottoman Empire did bring a lot of suffering. Both RPC and SPC were crucial to resistance. Without the resistance and crucial role of RPC the Golden Horde would spread all over and probably the last you want would be the territory of Balkans occupied by Mongols. That it did not happen - say thanks to RPC.
What kind of loss of blood and life did happen between 1239 and mid-16th century is up to your imagination.
The role of RPC can be seen on icons which represent a style unknown in Serbia.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/ChurchMilitant.jpg
BTW: the fate of captured Mongol / Kipchak -s was often better than of the captured Christians.
Example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yadegar_Moxammat
10 Komentari
Sortiraj po: