Christian activists disrupt Hindu prayer in US Senate

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jul 17 2007, 12:41 PM) [snapback]480413[/snapback]</div>

Ah, but I am NOT "non-practicing", as I practice my religion daily.
And, no, I don't think that the word "religion" means only the christian religion.

Religion is a tool to put us in touch with the Divine (or, whatever a person's term for their higher power, deity, or the Universe is), and to help us play nice with each other. You might be surprised to discover that the core of nearly every religion or belief structure in the world, is just those two things.

 

I completely agree, actually. The golden rule is pretty universal.

What I disagree with is the statement that
A. All non-religious people (or non-practicing religious people) are immoral and going to hell.
B. All religions (or any for that matter) are evil and should be destroyed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jul 17 2007, 12:41 PM) [snapback]480413[/snapback]</div>

Members of the KKK feel a strong sense of community and belonging within their organization. They feel accepted for their shared values, their shared vision, for what they believe in. A number of KKK branches have made contributions to the community at large, through cash donations to relief groups, medical clinics, and churches. They have sponsored rallies to raise money for orphans and the disabled.

Should the KKK as an institution be preserved because it has these good aspects?

Just because an institution has favorable attributes does not necessarily justify, by itself, preserving the institution, especially if the corrosive effects of the institution wreak harm that outweighs the good.

Some of us believe (from observation, not speculation) that while churches definitely participate in and initiate many enterprises that benefit the community at large, that their core values of stifling scientific inquiry, inhibiting medical advancements, and especially of practicing severe and draconian discrimination against any who disagree with them on the most trivial of points, cause more harm to the advancement of civil, educated and prosperous society than they offset through their charitable work.

To some of us, the only difference between some institutional churches and the KKK is that the church won't set fire to you directly, but only delegates that task to its deity. Both institutions are strong on discrimination (for different reasons, but the differences are irrelevant), both are strong on ritual instead of reason, both discourage questioning their vision or methods, both are convinced they have THE truth, the only truth and the whole truth.

Both should be demolished as soon as society is able to wean itself away from them, and carry on doing all the good things that people have done for each other out of sheer human decency and charity without the medieval encumbrance of religious belief.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

"that their core values of stifling scientific inquiry, inhibiting medical advancements, and especially of practicing severe and draconian discrimination against any who disagree with them "

I should mention, that I am agnostic, and NOT religious.

However, I think it is unfair to say that the CORE value of any church is to stifle science and discriminate against people. That's a pretty wide brush to use. I agree the more "fundamentalist" Christians, Muslims, etc. might be guilty of what you're saying, but not the vast majority of them. And those that are guilty of it don't hold that as a core value. They do those things out of FUD. It can also be turned around on you as an athiest. That you seek to discriminate against those that don't agree with your religious beliefs (lack thereof is a religious belief).

MOST Chirstians, Islamics, Jews, athiests etc. are good people, and are not out to "kill the non-believers". Some use religion as a crutch, some enjoy the community aspect of it, some use it to alleviate guilt, and many just don't feel a need to question longstanding family traditions. There is nothing wrong with that. If their religious leaders are guilty of the above evils, then it should be their duty to question it or stand up against it. (the German Chirsitian churchs failed to do this pre WW2, and they paid a heavy price for it).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jul 17 2007, 02:29 PM) [snapback]480442[/snapback]</div>

Strictly speaking, Christians believe that everyone is immoral, but that Jesus came to sacrifice himself in order to forgive the world's shortcomings.

So while some see condemnation in Christianity, others see hope. Jesus caused quite a stir for associating himself with prostitutes and corrupt Roman officials who were more sorry for what they did than the holier-than-thou hypocritical religious leaders (who Jesus came down hard on).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jul 17 2007, 02:28 PM) [snapback]480492[/snapback]</div>

In the commonly accepted definition of discrimination: denying someone rights or privileges on the basis of some irrelevant attribute (e.g. ethnicity, belief system, economic status), please show me where I'm discriminating against anyone.

Incidentally, lack of religious belief BY DEFINITION cannot be a "religious" belief, and is a perversion of language to try to claim that it is. You don't say that a person who doesn't believe in superstition is superstitous; that his "superstition" is that he doesn't believe in it.

Or would you claim that your lack of atheistic belief is itself an atheistic belief?

MB

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jul 17 2007, 03:29 PM) [snapback]480442[/snapback]</div>

I heartily agree with both (although I'm not entirely sure about point B when it comes to Scientology).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Boulder Bum @ Jul 17 2007, 05:41 PM) [snapback]480497[/snapback]</div>

I would have said "broken" instead of immoral, but you put it all beautifully.

Jesus was a radical who turned the religious thinking of the time upside down.

 

After 2000 years, and counting every possible variation, christianity is still only a third of the world population.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rae Vynn @ Jul 17 2007, 10:18 PM) [snapback]480649[/snapback]</div>

So we're a minority and deserve special treatment.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Jul 17 2007, 05:08 PM) [snapback]480512[/snapback]</div>

"Both should be demolished" Seeking to destroy church communities? I would think that millions of church goers would feel a little discriminated against. Granted, you aren't burning anyone at the stake, but neither are they. Putting the common church goer next to the KKK and drawing similiarities is about the same as the Bush/Hitler comparison. A kernal of truth, with quite a bit of hyperbole. There are bad apples on every tree, including the clergy, and it's not fair to extend that criticism to the whole group.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Jul 17 2007, 05:08 PM) [snapback]480512[/snapback]</div>

I suppose I should restate that as your "point of view" or "core belief" or "theory on spirituality" or some other term. I guess I see "religion" as your personal view of what, if any type, of deity created/shaped mankind. It was a poor word to use, given that the connatation has always inferrred a "belief".
What term would better fit "an individuals POV on the question of God's existance"? When people ask me what religion I am, I say agnostic, rather than say "I don't believe in religion".

I really don't have a "lack of athiestic belief" either. I just won't take that final step to say "there is no god", since you cannot prove it. It is also why I am not a "believer". The whole question is unanswerable and should be left up to individuals. My key point is that tolerance is needed on both sides. Let religious folks have their beliefs, and let athiests have their beliefs, and leave it at that. If either side tries to force their POV on the other, than we have problems. (IE: seperation of church and state).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ Jul 17 2007, 08:14 AM) [snapback]480268[/snapback]</div>

The annual war on christianity doesn't start till December 1. Just ask those on the faux news/entertainment network who declare the official 'start' of the war every year.

 

So true!
They love to pick out the select few "militant" athiests that get their panties in a bunch come december, and expand it as if Christmas is getting attacked on all sides! We must fight back against the heritics!

MOST athiests/agnostic don't give a crap, and like myself, enjoy the holidays for what it is. Spending time with family, getting a few days off from work, and generally enjoying oneself.

Where's Airport kid? I want to know how he feels about Christmas.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jul 18 2007, 12:05 PM) [snapback]480977[/snapback]</div>

It's those few idiots who file lawsuits and threaten public officials with lawsuits if Christmas is kept in the season in the public square. Thankfully the Alliance Defense Fund has a pile of lawyers to help the public officials understand it's ok to have a Christmas tree or a manger scene. They spend a lot of money to keep Christmas in Christmas for us.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FiftyOneMPG @ Jul 18 2007, 12:51 PM) [snapback]481022[/snapback]</div>

Onward, Christian soldiers!

-----

It's not a donkey or an elephant thing, but why they're even praying in the first place is beyond me. Also, this is more than a quaint olde tradition; I don't think it should be allowed on those grounds, either.

 

I have to say that I really don't like the tone that the extremes of BOTH sides of this argument take. I see no profit to be gained by telling someone that their belief system is ridiculous. Unless they a Scientologists, 'cause Xenu is just whacky, and written by a science fiction writer. Nor do I see any merit in the argument that one belief system should be the "core values" of a nation.

Our nation has risen to the top of the worlds economy through tolerance. All belief systems should be given equal treatment - the ones with truth in them will rise to the top. Sort of like free-market Capitalism - the only controls should be to prevent coercion. I have no problem if some fundamentalist in Utah has to have his 3 wives. I DO have a problem if the religion of the community coerces an otherwise unwilling girl to be his wife.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jul 18 2007, 10:05 AM) [snapback]480977[/snapback]</div>

I love Christmas. It's the one brief time of year that people feel compelled to act just a little more decently toward their fellow man than usual - I find it comical that our species can't take more than few days of such behavior before relapsing back to our usual less charitable selves, but it's wonderful while it lasts.

There are aspects of the holiday I deplore, mostly the heavy emphasis on material gain, but so what, it's a holiday, it's a time of somewhat increased tolerance and goodwill, and if people think getting the latest commercialized gadget designed explicitly to capitalize on our mania for material exchange is the key to true happiness and fulfillment, who am I to stand in the way? Albeit I've shifted from giving gifts to giving instead to charities, and encourage others to do the same.

And Christmas is the holiday's name, as generic as Xerox and Kleenex, a holiday whose religious trappings have long since been eclipsed by its more material aspects, and the general pervasiveness of acting decently for a change, so you won't hear me grumbling such euphemisms as "winter holiday" and other bits of nonsense. It's Merry Christmas and goodwill toward men and have a mug of nog!

Just spare me from having to hear "The Little Drummer Boy" more than eight or nine thousand times a day.

MB

 

Spot on Mad Hatter!
I've been trying to make the same point to both sides in multiple posts, but I think they ENJOY the turmoil, as they certainly don't like to be told to live and let live.

Airport kid: I knew you weren't one of the militant athiests fighting Christmas trees!
I'll take Little drummer boy over Away in the manger anyday, though.

 

Wonder where Windstrings & Loveit vanished to - they'd usually be in the thick of threads like this ---

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mad Hatter @ Jul 18 2007, 11:40 AM) [snapback]481066[/snapback]</div>

I've been thinking about this quite a bit. I have a book that is on loan to a family member, so I can't remember the title and details, but its written by the editor of Newsweek. He examines the various beliefs of the founders, and the use of what he calls the "public religion" ... those references to God, Creator, Divine Jurisprudence, etc. that are so common in our early documents. It is the best book out there on religion in America (mainly because I agree with his conclusions!)

Our founders not only created a nation without an established religion, but they dis-established official state-church ties. Most states had an official, tax-supported state church, and the Reconstructionists claim that's evidence that the founders wanted a state religion on a state-by-state basis. But that ignores the fact that these same founders methodically dis-established every single state church in independent actions, through the use of legislators elected by the state's people, with the last official state-church tie ending in something like 1826 (MASS was the last state to sever ties).

But they really didn't look for a secular society in the modern sense of the term. Americans have always been religious, and the founders ... including non-believers like Thomas Jefferson ... maintained a kind of public religion. I don't mean it was fake, because it wasn't, but it was an amalgamation of the social beliefs of the various forms of Christianity and Judiasm extant, and intended to unify a diverse group of people. It gave us an important "mission statement" to debate current issues about, and is why Americans often think of positions in terms of moral values (both left and right). I'm not sure that's exactly "tolerance", but I think it comes pretty close.

The prayer of any major religion fits in well with that, but I think we also have to strike a balance between personal liberty and public expression that borders on coercive. There are things we should say are right, and that we won't tolerate violations of, even if cloaked in religious terms. Wife beating, child abuse or polygamy come to mind here. Coercive or stringent dress or behavior codes directed at others are another thing I think we can agree on.

But I think prayer directed by government officials to children is out, and so are misguided efforts to teach false science in order to try and buttress your personal theology. I'm willing to say that new religious monuments should not be on public property, but I think we can avoid razing the Mission San Juan Capistrano because it has a Catholic Church in it.