Now, I know the vast
majority of adherents to religion are good decent, rational people.
Not exact matches
By AD 353 the Christian community in Edessa was divided by the rift between the bishop and his
adherents on the one hand and the school
of Edessa and the
majority of the Christians on the other.
It provides a base for new coalitions between Roman Catholics and Protestants (witness the ecumenical character
of its
adherents), liberals and conservatives (witness the continuing concerns
of the World Council
of Churches and the evangelicals» Chicago Declaration), «
majorities» and «minorities» (witness the numerous theological works written from black, feminist, Latin American and Anglo perspectives), and therefore can become an acceptable, sound theological foundation for church education.
A perfect counter-example is Hinduism, which by construction is more spiritual than religious — it's
adherents do not have strict rules or norms, and there is incredible diversity
of norms within one umbrella (some who believe in caste system, even though a large
majority of urbanites study in Christian missionary schools; some who believe cows are sacred though 2/3
of Indians are actually non-vegetarian).
But a lot
of the blame for the fear should go to terrorist groups and radicals who are soiling my faith and crippling the voices
of the overwhelming
majority of peaceful
adherents.
As lawsuits multiply and partisans continue to squabble over President Donald Trump's executive order banning migration from six
majority - Muslim nations, liberals in the mainstream media have been pushing the line that America's historic tolerance
of religious diversity no longer extends to
adherents of the Islamic faith.
Mass
adherents of collective deceptions are typically passionate and honest, and while more intense and biassed at the deeper end, are still not employing intentional deceit in the vast
majority of cases.