Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 585 times:
Well, congrats on getting it published.
A few thoughts of my own.
Evacuating East Jerusalem and poisoning the religious sites with radioactive elements with a specified half-life buys enough time to work the religion out of the heads of both sides. At the same time, radiation does not physically destroy the religious sites. No mullah will be able to claim Zionist desecration and no Zionist will be able to talk about any destiny or biblical claim to a land which is uninhabitable to humans.
I highly, highly disagree with this statement. I don't think outside countries should dictate to countries how they should and can do things for their religion. And plus, this is a very, very morbid idea, and it will achieve nothing except anger and resentment. Religion is religion, and trying to limit it only causes problems.
Dragogoalie From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 1220 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 582 times:
I personally think that religion does more hurt than it does good. Look at so many fights that are going on in the world, and even just on this board, and try to find the cause. Just a thought though. In a way I'm happy that I'm undecided.
FlyBoeing From United States of America, joined May 2000, 866 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (12 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 552 times:
I think that man's right to live free from the political battles that ensue from "holy land" is a higher calling than interference with the way people prosecute their religion. People can prosecute religion - except there is no land that is Holy.
And we have to look at the long term here. There's no physical destruction of the site. It might create resentment in the short run but so did the Allied victory in World War II. Humanity has to advance in order for there to be peace in the M.E