Thinking about the current events with that madman Pat Robertson (see below) made me realize one other thing: that there is a reason why probably nothing will happen to him.
Religious violence, even in this “enlightened” age, is still very much around. You’ve probably heard about attacks on abortion clinics. But religions also fight among themselves - sometimes even among sub-sets (or sub-sects?) of the same religion. Lynchings, bombings and so on are common, and not only in Arab countries or in Ireland.
But… have you ever heard about religion-related violence by non-religious people? (note the “religion-related”). Have you ever heard of a “fanatical atheistic” group bombing churches or kidnapping / killing priests? Or, to put it in another way: it’s common to be a target of violence for having the “wrong” religion at a particular time and place, but it’s not common to be attacked for having a religion, by non-religious people.
Why? Because these same non-religious people tend not to be fanatics. They tend to think that one’s beliefs are his own choice, and not a reason to hurt anyone.
That’s why there probably won’t be any violence against a guy who wants to kill a democratically elected president for religious (and political, of course) reasons. He’s probably safe… because his opponents are a lot better than he is.
Technorati tags: Pat Robertson
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
0 Responses to “Violence, religion and Pat”