The role of religion

[Spider AL]

To a certain extent, obviously they are. I mean, one must possess at least a certain quantity of irrationality to believe in Jehovaspankage after all. The more fundamentalist, the more irrational, and the more likely they are to vote purely on religious issues.

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by Spider AL

To a certain extent, obviously they are. I mean, one must possess at least a certain quantity of irrationality to believe in Jehovaspankage after all. The more fundamentalist, the more irrational, and the more likely they are to vote purely on religious issues.

 

ok, as ive said before religions role in society should not be a prominent one, but its right to exist is not in question. similarly the right of such people to stand for office is not in question. that means that people will vote on the basis of their religion. i say that this ok when they are voting for someone because they identify with them because thats really why everyone votes and i say it is not ok when they are voting because they want the rest of society to be subjected to their beliefs on specific issues. its not the same thing.

 

i also think that youre being a bit unfair to say that across all faiths, followers of religion do so firstly without question and secondly the leaders of such faiths are all brainwashers/manipulators etc because there are plenty who are not. these are the ones i keep saying that i have no problem with.

[Spider AL]

ok, as ive said before religions role in society should not be a prominent one, but its right to exist is not in question.

Without a doubt, people should be able to believe in whatever they like... but should they bring that belief into the voting booth? No. That's the place for reason and fact.

 

i say that this ok when they are voting for someone because they identify with them because thats really why everyone votes

Not everyone, but many many people do. And that's not good. We should vote for whoever has the best policies and- if they've held office before- whether they've delivered in the past. That's why Bush should have been fired in this election.

 

i also think that youre being a bit unfair to say that across all faiths, followers of religion do so firstly without question

Oh I haven't said that at all.

 

and secondly the leaders of such faiths are all brainwashers/manipulators etc

I haven't said that either.

 

I agree with you completely that there are many vicars, priests, pastors, clerics and monks from all religions who are good people and try to HELP their flock rather than influence them to hold one point of view.

 

What I've been saying is that there are religious people who see the world only through religious eyes, and they are usually the victims of religious brainwashing inflicted upon them by their manipulative, zealot preachers. And since they choose their candidate basing their decision only on religion, and because they are ignorant of any and all VITAL political issues that they should be voting on,..

 

They should not be allowed to vote at all.

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by Spider AL

 

What I've been saying is that there are religious people who see the world only through religious eyes, and they are usually the victims of religious brainwashing inflicted upon them by their manipulative, zealot preachers. And since they choose their candidate basing their decision only on religion, and because they are ignorant of any and all VITAL political issues that they should be voting on,..

 

They should not be allowed to vote at all.

 

unfortunately i cant see that coming to pass. and if you start denying people the right to vote because of their beliefs you are talking about setting an extremely dangerous precedent

[Spider AL]

unfortunately i cant see that coming to pass.

Sadly, neither can I. The Republican party wouldn't let it happen for a start, they'd never get into power again.

 

if you start denying people the right to vote because of their beliefs you are talking about setting an extremely dangerous precedent

There's nothing dangerous about it. Stopping people who vote for utterly frivolous reasons would be a great thing, no doubt about it. The problem lies in deciding who has merit and who does not. If it were not for this admittedly substantial stumbling block, I'd raise a rabble and get it done this instant.

[Kurgan]

While the atheists and evangelical Christians on this forum have some very strong opinions and love to go at each other, I'll offer my opinion here, as somebody who (not to toot my own horn) at least has a degree in religion (and from an academic non-religious university for those who want to claim I've been brainwashed by fundies).

 

1) What is the role of religion? I'll here agree with Charles Kimball, Mark Ellis and other theologians and teachers that Religion is much like the "Force" in Star Wars.

 

There is a "Good Side" and a "Dark Side" to it. How it expresses itself is dependent on how it is used by each person. In the past it has been used for good and used for bad. In the future it will be used for good and used for bad. Religion shows no signs of going away. Attempts to destroy it have failed. The best "strategy" for good in the world is to emphasize, foster and choose the good, while avoiding, condeming and fighting against the bad.

 

2) What role does religion have in society? Again, see above.

 

Seeking to eliminate Religion has its downsides. If you feel that a religion-free society must be enlightened and wonderful, take a look at Soviet Russia. If you believe that a religious state is heaven on earth, take a look at Saudi Arabia, or the Holy Roman Empire. Religion debates often end up like political debates. One side tars and feathers the other and jumps on their bandwagon and caters to their party line. The other side usually does the same just to keep up. It's silly really. I'm not trying to start some Golden Mean Fallacy here, but I think there is a lot more to the debate than what people let on. It's not hardcore atheists vs. fundies, although those people may like to fight each other in public. There IS room for discussion and sharing, and I think good can come from it.

 

Also, there are countries where religion is more in the public sphere and yet they have not fallen into theocratic "oppression" as a result. Take Britain or Germany for example. Britain is a monarchy with a state church. If certain debaters are to be believed, they should be burning thousands at the stakes every day at tea-time.

 

Perhaps one will argue that Britain's situation is the exception. I admit that their situation is complex. But it defeats the notion that simply having religion in the public sphere one place and it turns out bad is proof that it will turn out bad anywhere.

 

Religious intolerance perhaps will always be with us, hence the desire by some to make everyone the same (either by converting everyone to the same religion, or destroying all religion), but that's an irrational approach I think, since it is completely unworkable, and probably would cause more problems than it solved.

 

I value my freedom of religion in America. For portions of history in this country Catholics were persecuted or mistrusted by the population at large or even the state. Now we enjoy the same freedoms everyone else does, though we have plenty of Catholic-haters in the news most people are fairly tolerant. I'm not afraid to walk home from church at night because of my affiliation.

 

And like everything else (especially privacy rights) we do need to be informed on the issues and fight for our rights (I'm talking civic duty here). The cost of freedom IS eternal vigilance.

 

I respect the atheist's choice to not believe in any gods, even if I think he's wrong. I respect the Jew, the Muslim, the Buddhist, the Wiccan, etc to believe as their conscience dictates as well. That's what freedom of religion is.

 

Should public figures be allowed to express their beliefs? Yes. Should they be politically correct and avoid offending people who don't believe as they do? No. It's up to them. Unpopular speech is protected just as popular speech. Likewise unpopular religion is protected as is popular religion. Let's keep it that way.

[Spider AL]

Also, there are countries where religion is more in the public sphere and yet they have not fallen into theocratic "oppression" as a result. Take Britain or Germany for example. Britain is a monarchy with a state church. If certain debaters are to be believed, they should be burning thousands at the stakes every day at tea-time.

Bear in mind that though we may officially have a state church and are a monarchy, our church and monarchy are irrelevant to the running of the country, and many believe that the latter is merely sucking up pounds and pounds for no good reason.

 

Seeking to eliminate Religion has its downsides.

If anyone has sought to abolish religion in this thread, they deserve a poke in the eye.

 

Should public figures be allowed to express their beliefs? Yes.

Expressing their beliefs? Fine. Churchgoing, prayer meetings, hell, they can carry bibles around with them in the seat of government all they like. But judge how a secular society should run based on their religion alone? No thank you.

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by Kurgan

While the atheists and evangelical Christians on this forum have some very strong opinions and love to go at each other, I'll offer my opinion here, as somebody who (not to toot my own horn) at least has a degree in religion (and from an academic non-religious university for those who want to claim I've been brainwashed by fundies).

 

1) What is the role of religion? I'll here agree with Charles Kimball, Mark Ellis and other theologians and teachers that Religion is much like the "Force" in Star Wars.

 

There is a "Good Side" and a "Dark Side" to it. How it expresses itself is dependent on how it is used by each person. In the past it has been used for good and used for bad. In the future it will be used for good and used for bad. Religion shows no signs of going away. Attempts to destroy it have failed. The best "strategy" for good in the world is to emphasize, foster and choose the good, while avoiding, condeming and fighting against the bad.

 

2) What role does religion have in society? Again, see above.

 

Seeking to eliminate Religion has its downsides. If you feel that a religion-free society must be enlightened and wonderful, take a look at Soviet Russia. If you believe that a religious state is heaven on earth, take a look at Saudi Arabia, or the Holy Roman Empire. Religion debates often end up like political debates. One side tars and feathers the other and jumps on their bandwagon and caters to their party line. The other side usually does the same just to keep up. It's silly really. I'm not trying to start some Golden Mean Fallacy here, but I think there is a lot more to the debate than what people let on. It's not hardcore atheists vs. fundies, although those people may like to fight each other in public. There IS room for discussion and sharing, and I think good can come from it.

 

Also, there are countries where religion is more in the public sphere and yet they have not fallen into theocratic "oppression" as a result. Take Britain or Germany for example. Britain is a monarchy with a state church. If certain debaters are to be believed, they should be burning thousands at the stakes every day at tea-time.

 

Perhaps one will argue that Britain's situation is the exception. I admit that their situation is complex. But it defeats the notion that simply having religion in the public sphere one place and it turns out bad is proof that it will turn out bad anywhere.

 

Religious intolerance perhaps will always be with us, hence the desire by some to make everyone the same (either by converting everyone to the same religion, or destroying all religion), but that's an irrational approach I think, since it is completely unworkable, and probably would cause more problems than it solved.

 

I value my freedom of religion in America. For portions of history in this country Catholics were persecuted or mistrusted by the population at large or even the state. Now we enjoy the same freedoms everyone else does, though we have plenty of Catholic-haters in the news most people are fairly tolerant. I'm not afraid to walk home from church at night because of my affiliation.

 

And like everything else (especially privacy rights) we do need to be informed on the issues and fight for our rights (I'm talking civic duty here). The cost of freedom IS eternal vigilance.

 

I respect the atheist's choice to not believe in any gods, even if I think he's wrong. I respect the Jew, the Muslim, the Buddhist, the Wiccan, etc to believe as their conscience dictates as well. That's what freedom of religion is.

 

Should public figures be allowed to express their beliefs? Yes. Should they be politically correct and avoid offending people who don't believe as they do? No. It's up to them. Unpopular speech is protected just as popular speech. Likewise unpopular religion is protected as is popular religion. Let's keep it that way.

 

why youve included all those "facts" i dont know, they dont support your opinion in any way.

 

your assertions about Britain and religion are simply unfounded with no basis in reality whatsoever. it has a state religion, true and it is a monarchy, true. These two things actual influence on british culture: zero. people in Britain are just as free as they are in america to worship whatever religion they choose too. who exactly are these "certain debaters" you mention who would have thousands burnt at the stake (a method of execution defunct in Britain for centuries)? and you mentioned Germany and failed to elaborate on what you meant.

 

Perhaps one will argue that Britain's situation is the exception. I admit that their situation is complex. But it defeats the notion that simply having religion in the public sphere one place and it turns out bad is proof that it will turn out bad anywhere.

 

would you please explain that quote?

 

Britain's situation is not that complex at all in comparison with other countries as regards religion. religion has had no real grounding in the running of the British Government in a very long time, all thats left are ceremonial references...

 

and what exactly are you saying has turned out badly in Britain. some facts to support these assertions please.

 

I value my freedom of religion in America. For portions of history in this country Catholics were persecuted or mistrusted by the population at large or even the state. Now we enjoy the same freedoms everyone else does, though we have plenty of Catholic-haters in the news most people are fairly tolerant. I'm not afraid to walk home from church at night because of my affiliation.

 

what is the relevance of this? it says nothing on topic at all. it might support an assertion that religion is not prominent in american society (which would ultimately be an incorrect statement) but you make no such assertion in your post, so im left wondering what it is relevant to.

 

And like everything else (especially privacy rights) we do need to be informed on the issues and fight for our rights (I'm talking civic duty here). The cost of freedom IS eternal vigilance.

 

finally, youve begun to make some sense here. from what i can tell youre expressing the opinion that a role for religion in society would be to help maintain a tolerance for each other more specifically with your own religion in mind, which is a pretty sound point and a good reason for religion to avoid a prominent role in government in our society, as it prevents any religion from holding sway over others.

 

and in your conclusion you get to the real meat of your opinion without any reference whatsoever to the bizaare knowledge youve presented in the preceding paragraphs which is that religous leaders should be free to do and say as they wish, which would seem to run against regardless of other opinions, in direct contradiction first and foremost to yourself because if you want to live in peace going around not caring who gets offended is a poor way togo about things. i dont dispute your belief that all religion and speech is protected to exist as it wants as ive said elsewhere in the thread. you say you want to keep it that way (i agree, i just dont want religion in government) at the end. however you say that public figures should not worry about offending people. presumably you offend someone if you challenge their beliefs and when you do that you give rise to things like religous distrust...

[ShadowTemplar]

Religion is to the mind what alcohol is to the body: Pleasureable if enjoyed in moderate quantities, but deadly if cosumed excessively. Thus it is the duty of all preachers to be vigilant against addiction and obsessive use of their product, just as it is the duty of all barkeeps to ensure that they do not feed alcoholism and drunken brawls. Unfortunately, most societies have had very little luck enforcing this principle.

 

Religion is often one of the few ways people are taught morals. If religion weren't on that job, how would society teach its members morality in a way that's sure to reach them? Keep up the debate folks!

 

Many of the most moral people in history were atheists. Many - if not most - of the most immoral people in history were theists. Even prominent theists. Moses, for example, is depicted as a cardboard-cut-out bad guy in OT. And need I mention Hitler, the Papacy (and their intimate connection) or Rocco Buttiglione? Or GWB for that matter?

 

The point is that with or without religion, you'll have bad guys. And with or without religion you'll have good guys. But only with religion will you have good guys do bad things.

 

My guess is just outside of the winners circle. How can you cry foul and say it's not "fair" just because religion had sway on an election, bill being passed, etc...? I thought that was a big part of what a democracy is.

 

Democracy is based on the principle of informed choice. Religion, by its very nature cannot be informed. If people base their vote - or, for that matter, their lives - primarily on the tenents of their religion, then their religion has become pathological.

 

some good points from people. now for another monkey wretch, If parents should be the ones to teach their children morals, what happens to children who have bad parents or no parents?

 

Society has should have institutions to take care of them.

 

Also, what happens when what parents teach their children conflicts with what is viewed as "moral" by the general public?

 

In most societies those children are unceremoniously chucked in prison.

 

Is there no such thing as a common standard of right and wrong without religious education?

 

The fundamental mistake in your entire line of argument is the belief that there is a common standard of right in religious education. History shows us that this is not so. According to Judeaism, Christianity is heresy. According to Catholicism, Protestantism is heresy. According to mainstream Protestantism, the Mormons are heretics. What common standard exists between the different religious bodies? I can see none, save hypocricy and a pathetic fear of progress.

 

The problem is that those acts are seen as inherently evil (or at the very least gravely immoral), and even allowing such things would mean that they actually participated in permitting the acts to come about.

 

The problem is not that you wish to forbid actions that you percieve as immoral. The problem is that you derive your morality from your religion, because it means that you have not subjected it to suffecient critical scrutiny.

[Spider AL]

Many of the most moral people in history were atheists

And presumably, all the rest of the great moral visionaries were confirmedly religious. As you yourself have said, morality is independent of religion. Religion doesn't create evil, as it's just another tool for rulers to control their populace.

 

But only with religion will you have good guys do bad things.

Good guys don't do bad things, for ignorance is the only real sin. If a man gives up responsiblity for his own concience and hands it over to some preacher, doing whatever said preacher tells him, he is definitely a bad guy. Wilful ignorance... evil.

[Writer]

OK, I'm done being angry for having my head bitten off in another thread:

 

1) What is religion to you?

 

Religion? I dunno. (People are gonna give me crap for this) I'm in a relationship with the only God who became Man. I'll admit openly that it's not a very good relationship yet, but I'm working on it.

 

 

2)What role do you think religion has in society?

 

 

It has a lot of influence. If it didn't, people wouldn't explode into debate and screaming contests whenever it was mentioned. Remember why people came to the USA? Wasn't it that they weren't allowed to practice religion as they desired? Religion was/is the foundation of our country.

[lukeiamyourdad]

They also had the freedom NOT to practice the religion and NOT have it imposed on them.

 

Religion was/is the foundation of our country.

 

When I hear this, I think of Iran. Don't know why...

[Spider AL]

Religion? I dunno. (People are gonna give me crap for this) I'm in a relationship with the only God who became Man.

I'm struggling not to give you crap, man, I am. I'm doing my best... but you must answer this question, please: Why is it that nearly all Christians use dogma as an aid to self-description and definition?

 

Can't you just say "I agree with Christ's principles of tolerance and forgiveness, and believe in his divinity"? Why do you have to blurt out "MY GOD'S THE ONLY GOOD GOD OMG!!!11"?

 

Religion was/is the foundation of our country.

Yeah, well nowhere's perfect.

[stingerhs]

1. religion is a bunch of garbage that people like to shove down your throats in order to control your actions. call me contradicting if you want, but i prefer to think for myself rather than to let all of these 'intellectual leaders' of the christian church do it for me.

 

last time i checked, (and this is where i will finally get "religious", if thats what y'all want to call it) my relationship with God is strictly personal. the bible is his word, and i follow it through application.

 

in other words, you use the entire bible to think through a problem. too many "christians" like to cite one verse from the bible for their actions whenever 20 other verses contradict those same actions. again, religious garbage.

 

2. religion has played a major role in the course of history since the dawn of time, and it will continue to do so. you can claim "seperation of church and state" all you want, but the real fact is that the belief in the divinity of human thought (otherwise known as humanism) is just as much a religion as christianity.

 

instead of focusing on God as the prime source of worship, the focus lies on the abilities of humans which is usually referred to as "science", the basis of humanism. this is belief that the only real things in life are things that are tangible and can be proven through experimentation.

 

now, don't think that i'm completely against all that humanism/science has brought the world (computers, electricity, modern medicine, etc). the main problem i have with it is that most of its followers tend to label other religions (specifically fundalmentalist christains) as the ones in society that cause all the political conflicts and the ones that try to force their viewpoints on everyone else. in reality, the dogma that is "seperation of church and state" is nothing more than humanists making their belief structure the dominant force in govenment and politics.

 

to avoid having to explain myself later, this is why democracy is a truely flawed system. the humanists cannot and should not be allowed to use the "seperation of church and state" clause because this keeps the church out of the state. whenever the church is out of the state, and all that remains is humanist idealogy, then the church is no longer represented. this is called oppression which is not allowed in the definition of democracy.

 

the question then arises as to how to accomidate all of the churches (not just christian) into the democracy. the simple answer: you can't. somebody is going to get their toes stepped on one way or the other. the humanists, because they don't want to see "religion" imposed on the majority, and the church since it can't impose enough authority. since the very ideals of humanism and the church are at opposite ends of the spectrum, compromise is most definately not an easy thing to accomplish, which is another conerstone of democracy.

 

*whew* thats a lot of stuff, but its what i believe.

[Spider AL]

compromise is most definately not an easy thing to accomplish, which is another conerstone of democracy.

Just to clarify, since I'm unsure what you meant by this exactly: the cornerstone of democracy is the enforcement of the will of the majority, not compromise between the majority and minority.

 

2. religion has played a major role in the course of history since the dawn of time, and it will continue to do so. you can claim "seperation of church and state" all you want, but the real fact is that the belief in the divinity of human thought (otherwise known as humanism) is just as much a religion as christianity.

A: No, it isn't. Religion requires a deity or pantheon of supernatural beings to worship, simply by definition. B: Secularism is about removing all irrationality and illogic from governance. Government is management, and anyone who makes managerial decisions based on dogma of any sort is a buffoon and is unfit to lead. It's that simple.

 

to avoid having to explain myself later, this is why democracy is a truely flawed system. the humanists cannot and should not be allowed to use the "seperation of church and state" clause because this keeps the church out of the state. whenever the church is out of the state, and all that remains is humanist idealogy, then the church is no longer represented. this is called oppression which is not allowed in the definition of democracy.

It's wrong to discriminate against people because of their race, age and creed... but one MUST discriminate against ideas if they are amoral, illegal and damaging to society. We discriminate against neo-nazism, we discriminate against axe-murderers and child-molesters. Is that "undemocratic"? Of course not. Such people and their ideas are damaging to others, and society as a whole.

 

So your claim that making society secular is in some way "undemocratic" is irrelevant and a little silly. Religiously-based political decisions are by definition irrational, and are therefore random at best in their effects. Some such decisions will be good, others will be bad, but all will be undesirable because RATIONAL, secular decision-making when properly employed will always result in logical, positive choices. QED.

 

In a secular society, people worship what they like, but they don't bring it into work or school with them. That's all good.

[stingerhs]

Just to clarify, since I'm unsure what you meant by this exactly: the cornerstone of democracy is the enforcement of the will of the majority, not compromise between the majority and minority.

thats not what the state department likes to think. this is a source that i used in a recent essay for my english class:

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/majority.htm

A: No, it isn't. Religion requires a deity or pantheon of supernatural beings to worship, simply by definition.

very true. as i've stated earlier, the deity that humanists "worship" is the human's ability to reason. although a "god" is not acknowledged, it is implied in the form of human thought and achievements. check this source:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:Humanism

B: Secularism is about removing all irrationality and illogic from governance. Government is management, and anyone who makes managerial decisions based on dogma of any sort is a buffoon and is unfit to lead. It's that simple.

also true. however, the idea of "purifying" governance has the one major flaw, and that lies directly with human nature. no one can make consistantly perfect descions because it is human nature to make mistakes. i do, however, agree wholeheatedly with your opinion of people ruling according to their dogma.

It's wrong to discriminate against people because of their race, age and creed... but one MUST discriminate against ideas if they are amoral, illegal and damaging to society. We discriminate against neo-nazism, we discriminate against axe-murderers and child-molesters. Is that "undemocratic"? Of course not. Such people and their ideas are damaging to others, and society as a whole.

so, the basis of the christian God, which is love, ranks with the likes of neo-nazism, child molesters, and axe-murders?? you also imply that christian values are amoral and illegal. first, christianity being amoral is your opinion, and christianity being illegal is false according to the first amendment. although this is not outright stated, it is implied.

So your claim that making society secular is in some way "undemocratic" is irrelevant and a little silly. Religiously-based political decisions are by definition irrational, and are therefore random at best in their effects. Some such decisions will be good, others will be bad, but all will be undesirable because RATIONAL, secular decision-making when properly employed will always result in logical, positive choices. QED.

the point was that the ideas of everyone, including the religios sects and the secularists, could never be properly represented. thus, the democratic system is flawed. however, as you have stated, governing by religion alone is irrational in most cases. you also, again, make another implication that religiously motivated people are incapable of making rational decisions. although this is true to the extent of implementing religious doctrine, you could at least agree that ideas such as loving your neighbor, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, etc could easily be accepted as secular philosophy, and not a part of a religion.

 

rational secular thinking will always lead to disagreements, no matter how postitve they are. remove any religion from both the democrats and the republicans, and you have a secular ideolgy that is highly contested. both can be concieved to be rational, but that would depend entirely on a person's politcal motivations.

In a secular society, people worship what they like, but they don't bring it into work or school with them. That's all good.

agreed. however, the US is far from a secular society. you can idealize it all you want, but it will never be completely secular.

[Spider AL]

thats not what the state department likes to think.

Since the US State department doesn't get to define what "democracy" means, your link is largely irrelevant. Democracy is government elected by the people, by majority rule. There is no dispute. Look it up on dictionary.com.

 

very true. as i've stated earlier, the deity that humanists "worship" is the human's ability to reason. although a "god" is not acknowledged, it is implied

Sorry, it's your erroneous inference, not humanist implication. A god is a god, a supernatural deity external to humanity. Thus any philosophy that does not involve the worship a deity cannot be classified as a religion, nor can the things that they DO idolize be classified as deities.

no one can make consistantly perfect descions because it is human nature to make mistakes.

Axiomatic. But letting someone govern according to religious dogma is like letting someone govern by tossing a coin. But we agree on this issue, so no more need be said.

 

so, the basis of the christian God, which is love, ranks with the likes of neo-nazism, child molesters, and axe-murders??

Once again, your inference, not my implication. Please try to stick to the facts. If you're going to just make up phantom stuff in your head, you can do it by yourself, I don't intend to indulge it.

 

Having said that, a lot of fundamentalists in the US are acting a bit like neo nazis at the moment.

 

rational secular thinking will always lead to disagreements, no matter how postitve they are.

This once again is a fallacy. Disagreement in politics comes from vote-hunting and vested interests. Any two people operating purely from rational standpoints will not disagree on the big issues at the very least. If there's a disagreement, someone's logic is flawed.

 

Logic is intractible. What a shame that nobody can attain total logic. But as I've said before, it's still more desirable in government than religious fundamentalism.

 

agreed. however, the US is far from a secular society.

Oh, we're well aware of that. In fact, the US is a fundamentalist state, currently. That's the PROBLEM.

[stingerhs]

apparently, me and you agree that the US should not be governed by fundalmentalist policies, even if i do agree with one or two of them on purely scientific grounds. where we differ lies within our own definitions of humanism and secularism, thus our opinions. i'm not arguing that seperation of church and state is wrong, its just improbable.

 

basing decisions on pure logic is very hard to attain since everyone is led by their own personal ambitions. as you also stated, differing opinions is often do to the desire to 'get the vote' as opposed to getting the job done right. again, failed logic that will likely continue even if seperation of church and state is achieved. this is because the government faces far more problems than just religious fundalmentalism.

 

however, the only way to have seperation of church and state is to somehow convince the fundalmentalists to give up their right to have a say in government. since their personal ambitions is to have a church state, then that is what they will drive for. unfortunately, as you've stated, they hold the majority of both influence among voters and hold a signifigant portion of the voting population.

[Spider AL]

we differ lies within our own definitions of humanism and secularism, thus our opinions.

Words have definitions, Stinger. We can't choose what they mean.

 

i'm not arguing that seperation of church and state is wrong, its just improbable.

The only reason it's improbable is because of the ignorance, wilful in many cases, of our populace.

 

failed logic that will likely continue even if seperation of church and state is achieved. this is because the government faces far more problems than just religious fundalmentalism.

Once again, failed logic is a better option that successful fundamentalism.

[stingerhs]

The only reason it's improbable is because of the ignorance, wilful in many cases, of our populace.

agreed. but keep in mind, some want to see good things established in their lives without consideration of others. this is the problem that has hampered humanity for millenia, and it will continue to do so, reguardless. you could attirbute this to ignorance, but it also has a large part to do with the natural, human desire to better oneself.

Once again, failed logic is a better option that successful fundamentalism.

also agreed.

[Spider AL]

you could attirbute this to ignorance, but it also has a large part to do with the natural, human desire to better oneself.

That unfocussed desire too is ignorance, stinger. One betters oneself not by the accumulation of things, but by the accumulation of knowledge and skill leading to self-knowledge and spiritual fulfilment, and better relationships with other people... and animals.

 

And plants.

 

THAT'S bettering oneself. Those who do not see it, are ignorant. GAWD I hate them, people like Bush and his cronies. So ignorant.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by stingerhs

you can claim "seperation of church and state" all you want, but the real fact is that the belief in the divinity of human thought (otherwise known as humanism) is just as much a religion as christianity.

 

And thus you have relativized everything... Nice try. But not good enough. If human thought was indeed considered divine, you might have had a point (but even then, humanism would still be superior to (other) religion). Nothing is divine.

 

instead of focusing on God as the prime source of worship, the focus lies on the abilities of humans which is usually referred to as "science", the basis of humanism. this is [the] belief that the only real relevant things in life are things that are tangible and can be proven through experimentation.

 

in reality, the dogma that is "seperation of church and state" is nothing more than humanists making their belief structure the dominant force in govenment and politics.

 

In reality, the dogma that is seperation of church and state is the only thing that stands between us and fascism.

 

whenever the church is out of the state, and all that remains is humanist idealogy, then the church is no longer represented. this is called oppression

 

*shrugs*

 

the question then arises as to how to accomidate all of the churches (not just christian) into the democracy. the simple answer: you can't.

 

The even simpler answer: Wipe them out.

 

since the very ideals of humanism and the church are at opposite ends of the spectrum, compromise is most definately not an easy thing to accomplish,

 

There is no need for compromise. Religion must step down. Its age is over, and we have no use for it.

 

so, the basis of the christian God, which is love [bullsh/t], ranks with the likes of neo-nazism, child molesters, and axe-murders??

 

Yes. In fact, Nazism is a Christian ideology, so it would follow that neo-nazism is on par with christianity... In fact I'd say that it's an insult to the neo-nazis.

 

you also imply that christian values

 

Cut the 'values' crap. Christian doctrine is immoral. Christian values is a McGuffin - a nonentity that can be whipped out to justify anything. Christianity - as well as all religion - must be judged by its history - and that is one of murder.

 

you also, again, make another implication that religiously motivated people are incapable of making rational decisions. although this is true to the extent of implementing religious doctrine, you could at least agree that ideas such as loving your neighbor, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, etc could easily be accepted as secular philosophy, and not a part of a religion.

 

I would go further still. I would claim that ideals such as loving thy neighbour is purely secular ideals.

 

rational secular thinking will always lead to disagreements, no matter how postitve they are. remove any religion from both the democrats and the republicans, and you have a secular ideolgy that is highly contested. both can be concieved to be rational, but that would depend entirely on a person's politcal motivations.

 

Your point being?

 

agreed. however, the US is far from a secular society. you can idealize it all you want, but it will never be completely secular.

 

Who's talking about the US? The US is largely irrelevant.

 

Sorry, it's your erroneous inference, not humanist implication. A god is a god, a supernatural deity external to humanity. Thus any philosophy that does not involve the worship a deity cannot be classified as a religion, nor can the things that they DO idolize be classified as deities.

 

Yes, and no... What defines a deity? Percieved supernatural powers? Then Communism is a religion - and the cultic worship of people like Stalin and Mao certainly smacks of religion. But ask any Communist, and he'll angrily profess his innocence.

 

The real question is: Is non-existence a requirement for deities?

 

This once again is a fallacy. Disagreement in politics comes from vote-hunting and vested interests. Any two people operating purely from rational standpoints will not disagree on the big issues at the very least. If there's a disagreement, someone's logic is flawed.

 

Not nessecarily. Priorities can differ. What logic does is to lay bare these priorities.

 

however, the only way to have seperation of church and state is to somehow convince the fundalmentalists to give up their right to have a say in government.

 

Or improve the educational system, so that the fundamentalists become an insignificant minority.

 

people like Bush and his cronies. So ignorant.

 

Bush is just a symptom. If he was the problem itself, I'd be seriously considering using my right to carry a concealed firearm...

[TheLiberator34]

Wow, I pop off the grid for a while and this thread is still alive? The debate forums must be really inactive, either that or I got some divine favor working .

As a last hurra, does anybody wonder if religion in general has had a problem adapting to the fact that people as a whole are more educated than they were before? Just thought I throw that out there.

[Kurgan]

Originally posted by Leper Messiah

why youve included all those "facts" i dont know, they dont support your opinion in any way.

 

Because I'm a jaded guy who has participated in, or witnessed debates just like this one, so I tried to address several points that are continually brought up. I'm not accusing you personally of holding the opposite of them, but I hoped they would at least help state my opinion in a more clear fashion, avoiding the "well he obviously forgot about ____" outbursts I was expecting. ; )

 

your assertions about Britain and religion are simply unfounded with no basis in reality whatsoever.

 

Ok. I appreciate any corrections you can put forth...

 

...it has a state religion, true and it is a monarchy, true. These two things actual influence on british culture: zero.

 

Well now I wonder about that. CULTURE is primarily what they affect. Otherwise why have them at all? If they had zero effect they would be seen as a waste and eliminated. What you should have said is they have zero effect on "government" or "law."

 

I have heard people say that the Queen can "at any time" seize her rightful powers and... I guess go invade somebody or something, not sure, but I think that might be a point of national pride or something. Like a law on the books that is never enforced. Don't know, I'm not an expert on British Law. My point is that even having an official state church headed by the monarch of the society doesn't not guarentee the crushing of religious freedom or diversity. In America people start to panic when public figures mention "God" or some religious statue is in a public building or somebody mentions "Christmas" at Christmas. While on the other hand people get upset when these things don't happen, I'm trying to show an example of a country that has these things and doesn't get all upset about it like it's the next Inquisition, that's all.

 

...people in Britain are just as free as they are in america to worship whatever religion they choose too. who exactly are these "certain debaters" you mention who would have thousands burnt at the stake (a method of execution defunct in Britain for centuries)? and you mentioned Germany and failed to elaborate on what you meant.

 

I'm not accusing any one person, which is why I didn't name anyone. Moreso than accusing anyone, I'm anticipating the common arguments I've heard so often in this type of debate. Every society is slightly different, but viewing the American situation in a vacuum is what I'm trying to insist is short-sighted.

 

Germany has state-sponsored churches, the Lutheran church and the Catholic church. People pay taxes that support the church of their choice, or a third option (IIRC) to the government for non-members of those churches. In school (pre-university), students can choose to take either Catholicism, Lutheranism (Protestant) or "Ethics." Such things would be unheard of in America, and yet Germany is not considered an oppressive theocracy.

 

The "burned at the stake" thing is an example of one of the (supposed) worries of what would happen if religion "got too much power" in a state. The worry-mongers who wish religion out of the public sphere will point to past religious intolerance and persecutions (such as the Witch burnings, hangings, Inquisitions, Crusades, etc) as the "inevitable" outcome of state approved/sponsored/whatever religion. They may also point to the example of Iran or Afgahnistan (pre-US invasion at least) or Saudi Arabia as evidence that religious states are inherently oppressive. By citing the example of Britain and Germany, where these persecutions are not taking place, I provide counter examples for these common rhetorical strategies in a debate such as this.

 

Hope that made sense.

 

I am not in any way implying that Germans or Brits are on the cusp of burning large numbers of people or killing them for their beliefs (only a few fanatics would do that, like in most societies). I'm not implying any sort of Jack Chick-esque conspiracy theory that "a new Inquisition" is just one Congressional resolution away either. Rather I'm trying to show why such a belief is not a certainty.

 

Britain's situation is not that complex at all in comparison with other countries as regards religion. religion has had no real grounding in the running of the British Government in a very long time, all thats left are ceremonial references...

 

Ah, so it's about legislation, not about public use of symbols. Now we're getting somewhere! So allowing people to display crosses, menorahs, nativity scenes, the ten commandments, praying in public, mentioning your deity of choice, etc. would theoretically be okay. It's just when you try to "legislate morality" that you'd object. Fair enough, I've heard that argument before too. I may not agree completely with it, but at least it makes more sense than the idea that we have to hide religious images or language in society for fear that their presence will trigger persecutions (like how in Germany they don't allow you to mention Hitler or display the Swastika, I suppose in the fear that this might encourage a return of Nazism).

 

and what exactly are you saying has turned out badly in Britain. some facts to support these assertions please.

 

Not sure what you mean by this. Am I saying that by being secularized Britain has turned out badly? I never even brought that up, I don't think. Rather I was saying that religon in the public sphere in Britain doesn't seem to have brought on any terrible persecutions or religious intolerance, at least in recent memory (minus a few fanatics who would probably do their stuff anyway, regardless). As far as the secularization of society (symbols that the majority don't take as authoritative), there's a big difference between that and suppression of religion (for whatever reason). If people simply stop going to Church or believing in God, that's people's choice. If the state says you can't mention God or worship freely, that's something else.

 

what is the relevance of this? it says nothing on topic at all.

 

It's completely on-topic, since the topic is the "role of religion." That includes in the public sphere, in life and in government. Either we're misunderstanding each other or you're making a poor showing of disagreeing with me.

 

it might support an assertion that religion is not prominent in american society (which would ultimately be an incorrect statement) but you make no such assertion in your post, so im left wondering what it is relevant to.

 

Britain has a state religion. Are they more secular (less overtly religious or less personally religious) than Americans? I'd have to look at polling numbers and statistics I guess. I generally tend to think of Britain as being "less religious" but then I realize that polls can be skewed. In America most people say they are Christian but their views and practices vary widely. Most people believe in something, but that varies from person to person. America has no state religion, but I feel like (at least listening to people on the internet and in popular media) that we're more uptight about religion than some other nations. I could be wrong of course, since all of those are generalization opinions.

 

finally, youve begun to make some sense here. from what i can tell youre expressing the opinion that a role for religion in society would be to help maintain a tolerance for each other more specifically with your own religion in mind, which is a pretty sound point and a good reason for religion to avoid a prominent role in government in our society, as it prevents any religion from holding sway over others.

 

I see what you're saying. So don't let one religion get too much power, for fear of it dominating others. While that sounds worthy-enough, I'd also say that dominance need not lead to intolerance (see the example of the Church of England). Some approaches would be to sponsor all religions equally, or simply leave them alone (like we do now in the US, well, on paper at least).

 

Baptists, who collectively make up a large percentage of Christians in the US (and Christians of course are the largest religion in America) tend to have an actual belief in strict seperation of church and state (how well this may jibe with the whole "legislating morality" debate of course is up for grabs).

 

and in your conclusion you get to the real meat of your opinion without any reference whatsoever to the bizaare knowledge youve presented in the preceding paragraphs which is that religous leaders should be free to do and say as they wish, which would seem to run against regardless of other opinions, in direct contradiction first and foremost to yourself because if you want to live in peace going around not caring who gets offended is a poor way togo about things.

 

At least you gave me some credit, I was hoping my argument made some sense. ; )

 

You know me... anyway.

 

As for not offending people, well, that's the thing. There's two approaches here:

 

1) Be politically correct. Only say those things which offend no one. Don't hold opinions of your own that would go against those of anyone else. Sounds pretty wishy-washy, but it's an option.

 

2) Believe what you want. Even if people call you an idiot or threaten you, believe what you want. You may make enemies, but at least you are being honest or following your conscience. Causes problems, but sounds like "Freedom" to me.

 

Now LEGALLY, #2 is how things are in the US. Obviously people try to get wiggle room and say "well you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" and there's the issue of "hate speech" and if it should be legal or not, and then you can't threaten the life of the US president, and people can sue each other for libel and slander (saying or writing something untruthful that defames the reputation and character of another person).

 

Ideally, #2 is in force, but then there's the issue of tolerance. That is differnet from political correctness (or what I think of it). Political correctness is restricting your own speech so as not to offend anyone. The downside is that it forbids expressing an opinion on a controversial issue (and it doesn't work if the other party isn't also politically correct and walks all over you with their own views). Tolerance would say instead that I disagree with you, but I allow you to hold your opinion, rather than trying to change your view by force (not necessarily violence, but harassment). Now obviously in a free society there is the risk of laws being made that go against the principles of freedom or people who abuse their freedom, but that's part of the territory. Anyway, I'm digressing here, but I hope that makes a bit more sense of what I was trying to say.

 

 

i dont dispute your belief that all religion and speech is protected to exist as it wants as ive said elsewhere in the thread. you say you want to keep it that way (i agree, i just dont want religion in government) at the end. however you say that public figures should not worry about offending people.

 

I presume that simply by being a public figure, while public figures ought to be tactful and diplomatic, they need not shed their own freedom of expression simply because of their office.

 

Yes, let's say Bush would greatly offend his constituents if he, for example said "all non-Christians are likely going to hell" (a not-uncommon belief among American Christians incidentally), so he might be more tactful not to say that in his public discourse, but he would still be free to say so.

 

 

presumably you offend someone if you challenge their beliefs and when you do that you give rise to things like religous distrust...

 

Yes. And there's no way to prevent people from being offended by things. Ideally people would all be of sound enough mind not to fly into a fury when a controversial topic came up and were able to discuss it in a civilized manner. Many people can, many people can't. The issue seems to be whether these debates can take place in public (where other people can see them) and if people in positions of authority (outside of religious institutions) can have them.

 

Most people don't seem to care what goes on behind closed doors. For example some guy who hates Catholics probably doesn't care if I go to church where he can't see me, or if I pray at home or debate theology with my family or friends somewhere, but if I mention my religion in his presence or he sees me praying, he gets mad. No problem, oh well, sorry buddy. He tries to debate about it with me, okay fine, if I'm up to it, no big deal. I say no, leave me alone, he should respect that. But let's say he tries to get a law passed so I can't do any of those things, that's when the trouble starts. And just the fact that my "being religious" makes him mad shouldn't be reason enough to prevent it from happening. Just as I'd give him the right to question my beliefs or express his own.

 

Anyway, I'm probably rambling, so that's it for now. Happy Holidays...

[SkinWalker]

Found on Usenet's sci.skeptic:

 

RELIGIOUS SURVEY

An amusing questionnaire circulating at Durham University.

 

God would like to thank you for your belief and patronage. In order to

better serve your needs, He asks that you take a few moments to

answer the following questions.

 

1. How did you find out about your deity?

 

__ Newspaper

__ Bible

__ Torah

__ Television

__ Book of Mormon

__ Divine Inspiration

__ Dead Sea Scrolls

__ My Mama Done Told Me

__ Near Death Experience

__ Near Life Experience

__ National Public Radio

__ Tabloid

__ Burning Shrubbery

__ Other (specify): _____________

 

2. Which model deity did you acquire?

 

__ Jehovah

__ Jesus

__ Allah

__ Krishna

__ Buddha

__ Tane

__ Father, Son, & Holy Ghost [Trinity Pak]

__ Brahma, Vishnu, & Siva [Trimurti Pak]

__ Mawu/Olorun & Obatala [Vodun Loa Pak]

__ Zeus and entourage [Olympus Pak]

__ Odin and entourage [Valhalla Pak]

__ Satan

__ Gaia/Mother Earth/Mother Nature

__ God 1.0a (Hairy Thunderer)

__ God 1.0b (Cosmic Muffin)

__ Big Pink Sky Fairy

__ None of the above, I was taken in by a false god

 

3. Did your God come to you undamaged, with all parts in good

working order and with no obvious breakage or missing attributes?

 

__ Yes __ No

 

If no, please describe the problems you initially encountered here.

Please indicate all that apply:

 

__ Not eternal

__ Finite in space/Does not occupy or inhabit the entire cosmos

__ Not omniscient

__ Not omnipotent

__ Not infinitely plastic (incapable of being all things to all

creations)

__ Permits sex outside of marriage

__ Prohibits sex outside of marriage

__ Makes mistakes

__ Makes or permits bad things to happen to good people

__ Makes or permits good things to happen to bad people

__ Looks after life other than that on Earth

__ When beseeched, doesn't stay beseeched

__ Requires burnt offerings

__ Requires virgin sacrifices

 

4. What factors were relevant in your decision to acquire a deity?

 

Please check all that apply.

 

__ Indoctrinated by parents

__ Needed a reason to live

__ Indoctrinated by society

__ Needed focus in whom to despise

__ Needed focus in whom to love

__ Imaginary friend grew up

__ Hate to think for myself

__ Wanted to meet girls/boys in church

__ Fear of death

__ Wanted to piss off parents

__ Wanted to please parents

__ Needed a day away from school or work

__ Desperate need for certainty

__ Like organ music

__ Need to feel morally superior

__ Thought Jerry Falwell was cool

__ Thought there had to be something other than Jerry Falwell

__ Sh_t was falling out of the sky

__ My shrubbery caught fire and told me to do it

 

5. Have you ever worshipped a deity before? If so, which false god

were you fooled by?

Please check all that apply.

 

__ Baal

__ The Almighty Dollar

__ Left Wing Liberalism

__ The Radical Right

__ Amon Ra

__ Beelzebub

__ Bill Gates

__ Barney The Big Purple Dinosaur

__ The Great Spirit

__ The Great Pumpkin

__ The Sun

__ The Moon

__ The Force

__ Cindy Crawford

__ Elvis

__ A burning shrub

__ Psychiatry

__ Other: ________________

 

6. Are you currently using any other source of inspiration in

addition to God?

Please check all that apply.

 

__ Tarot

__ Lottery

__ Astrology

__ Television

__ Fortune cookies

__ Ann Landers

__ Psychic Friends Network

__ Dianetics

__ Palmistry

__ Playboy and/or Playgirl

__ Self-help books

__ Sex, drugs, and rock & roll

__ Biorhythms

__ Alcohol

__ Marijuana

__ Bill Clinton

__ Tea Leaves

__ EST

__ Amway

__ CompuServe

__ Mantras

__ Jimmy Swaggert

__ Crystals

__ Human sacrifice

__ Pyramids

__ Wandering around a desert

__ Insurance policies

__ Burning shrubbery

__ Barney T.B.P.D.

__ Barney Fife

__ Other:_____________________

__ None

 

7. God reputedly employs a limited degree of Divine Intervention

to preserve a balanced level of felt presence and blind faith. Which

would you prefer? Circle one below:

 

a. More Divine Intervention

b. Less Divine Intervention

c. Current level of Divine Intervention is just right

d. Don't know.

e. What's Divine Intervention?

 

 

8. God also reputedly attempts to maintain a balanced level of

disasters and miracles. Please rate on a scale of 1 - 5 your opinion of

the handling of the following (1 = unsatisfactory, 5 = excellent):

 

a. Disasters:

 

1 2 3 4 5 flood

1 2 3 4 5 famine

1 2 3 4 5 earthquake

1 2 3 4 5 war & holocausts

1 2 3 4 5 pestilence

1 2 3 4 5 plague

1 2 3 4 5 Spam

1 2 3 4 5 AOL

 

b. Miracles:

 

1 2 3 4 5 rescues

1 2 3 4 5 spontaneous remissions

1 2 3 4 5 stars hovering over tiny town & previously unknown hamlets

1 2 3 4 5 crying statues

1 2 3 4 5 water changing to wine

1 2 3 4 5 walking on water

1 2 3 4 5 coincidence of any sort

1 2 3 4 5 getting any sex whatsoever

 

9. From time to time God reputedly makes available the names and

addresses of His followers and devotees to selected reputedly divine

personages who provide quality services and perform intercessions in

His behalf. Are you interested in a compilation of listed offerings?

 

__ Yes, please deluge me with religious zealots for the benefit of my

own mortal soul

 

__ No, I do not wish to be inundated by religious fanatics clamouring

for my money

 

 

10. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for

improving the quality of God's services?

(Attach an additional sheet if necessary)