Christian propaganda - it's everywhere.

It doesn't matter whether or not you did say anything about the nature of the threads concerned. Your remarks were about "apathetics" and how often they participate in the S & R forum. That only has meaning in the context of whether or not someone you are pleased to label an "apathetic" is actually discussing the topic of whether or not any god exists. If someone such as Phoenix shows up to provide information on religious adherence, that hardly constitutes evidence that she is not apathetic on the subject of whether or not a "god" exists. I can provide information on any number of fairy tales without either asserting that the fairy tales are true or that they are false.

Context apparently is not a concept which has ever penetrated your pin head. Otherwise, of course, you'd never have sneered about what "apathetics[/u]" do in the S & R forum. You have failed to identify any other "apathetics" and you have failed to demonstrate that participation in S & R threads is common in that body. Statistically, it would all be meaningless any way unless you were able to prove that you had considered all the "apathetics" at this site, omitting none.

You're the one who is flailing, and that is typical.

If I lived on that proverbial "desert island", I would not think much about religion at all. Except for the fact that the theory impacts on so many people with whom I come in contact, and I am a bit of an anomaly in this society with regards to religion, I feel that there are times that I want to respond.

Also, in my desire to be of assistance to other people, I think that it is important, especially for young people, to understand that there are many different views on the subject. I think that it is valuable for them to be exposed to the idea that there are choices in life, and that one does not have to necessarily adhere to their parent's teaching, just because they were raised in a particular tradition. I am not looking to proselytize anyone, just to pique their curiosity, and maybe think through something that they have always taken for granted.

Oh phoenix, you are a silly girl!

And being silly is one of my better qualities!

Re: Christian propaganda - it's everywhere.

Sigh.

Ok, I'm going to admit defeat here. Upon review, my argument did seem to be built on the sand, as it were. It's probably mainly false as well.

But before I go, I'd like to slip in a little dose of arrogance (as is my way): at least I can admit that I'm wrong. Scientists can do this. Religionists, on the other hand...

And therein lies the difference. One of the hallmarks of science is that one can make mistakes, correct them, and then make further attempts to get at the truth. With religion, one "buys the package". If something does not appear to make sense, if one gets into some cognitive dissonance over something that is either contradictory, or blatantly erroneous, one simply ascribes the contradiction to "faith".

aperson- If one can admit one's mistakes, it is not arrogance. It is the persons who are dead sure of their beliefs, even when faced with a contradiction, who are the arrrogant ones.

Exactly my thoughts, Phoenix. Well said. Scientists change their beliefs to fit the world. Religionists (try to) change the world to fit their beliefs.

Try to tell that to RL. HE actually believes that his worldview has evidence.

I wonder if that applies to Buddhism and some of the other eastern mystic religions.

In my experience it certainly applies frequently enough to the christian and Islamic religions.

Buddhism is part way. On the one hand, it's pretty good as far as religions go. On the other hand, it's still a religion. I suspect members still act and think religiously.

Scientists also try to prove that other scientists are wrong - no matter if it fits the world.
Religionists better is to say fundamentalists try to change the world to fit their beliefs. How much religionsists try to change the world to fit their religion is difficult to say as there are around 10.000 religions in this world and we only have some knowledge about a few and there are around 30.000 Christian denominations also.

Perhaps, but if you broke down what you meant by 'think religiously' I think you'd find that you're describing human nature.

Among many things we can religiously believe :

That our ways are the 'right' ways
That our values are the 'right' values
That our beliefs are the 'right' beliefs
That our truths are the 'right' truths

(and isn't that how you would describe religious beliefs?)

More specific examples that people can hold:

the beliefs of patriotism and nationalism
Political beliefs
right to life vs right to choice (although often forming along religious lines)
marriage
racism/prejudices/hatreds
moralities (these aren't always religion based)
Manners (what is considered manners)
Codes of ethics
Laws
"Rights' (right to privacy, right not to be injured at work etc)
That people 'different' from us are less human
etc

You are ignoring intolerance and imposition. I prefer the American model of representative democracy to the Westminster model which is used in all of the other English-speaking countries. I don't like the fact that there is no independent executive (the PM is also a member of the legislative branch, and controls the Commons from the floor), and there is a tradition of too much power being wielded by ministers, without reference to or oversight by the legislative. The judiciary is not independently established.

I consider that model to be superior. However, i am not for a moment intolerant of the Westminster model, nor do i think it would be a good idea to attempt to impose the Washington model on other democracies--people are free to practice self-determination, and the world is better off for it.

Organized religion does not simply state a preference, does not simply hold that its dogmatic canon is superior, it holds that all others are fatally errant, and the adherents thereof are by definition damned. Organized religions will impose their belief systems, and the "rules of life" implicit therein if given the opportunity. Intolerance and imposition are at the heart of all organized religion.

Each to their own. I'm extremely glad that we don't have an elected king like your President (yes, every American I've ever known has objected to that description, then as they've explained it further, have only further convinced me that it was it is - like when Parliament and the King fought for power, except that in the Presidents case, he remained Commander in Chief of the armed forces).

It's incomprehensible to me that your president can act outside of your laws (CIA black holes, Guantanamo Bay)



Those are fairly apt descriptions. Not entirely accurate, but close enough.



You are incorrect. It is impossible to sack a judicial appointment except for reasons of incompetence. Judicial independence is fiercely protected in the Westminster system.

Not necessarily. In the 17th century, when religious intolerance was at one of its high points in Europe, both Holland and Prussia showed an extraordinary degree of religious tolerance. Jews were tolerated, although subject to some restrictions. Protestants of all sects were tolerated, and even encouraged to immigrate--that was how "the Great Elector" (Frederick William, the Elector of Brandenburg) filled up Prussia, as a part of his campaign to make a great nation out of the Hohenzollern family lands, and to make a kingdom of Prussia. Both Holland and Prussia took in the French Protestants (England, too) after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Neither state was particularly fond of Catholics or Anabaptists (today's Baptists), but they were tolerated. This was at a time when being of a different religious confession in most of Europe was almost guaranteed to breed persecution, and could get you killed. The Lutherans, the German Reformed and the Dutch Reformed churches each one considered that they were right, and the others wrong. But the Dutch Estates and the Elector of Brandenburg (and later, his descendants, the Kings of Prussia) enforced toleration, much to the benefit of both nations.

Religions may be intolerant, but that doesn't mean that governments are necessarily intolerant, even if they consider their system superior. More than that, politics is a pragmatic profession in which the successful politician works through compromise and coalition to achieve his or her ends--and that requires tolerance, and prohibits imposition. You have listed "political beliefs" as a belief set held in the same way as the canon of an organized religion. Had you made that ideology, i might be inclined to agree--capitalist and communist fanatics can be every bit as dangerous as the religious fanatic. But it is not axiomatic that politics and politicians are intolerant. Most of your list contains points of view for which some, but by no means even a majority of people react with perfervid irrational bigotry ("manners?"--geeze, give me a break).



Yes, i'm certain that if you are convinced that you are right, and all Americans are wrong, then i'm sure you fit your own description of the bigot with regard to political beliefs. The office of President is not hereditary. The office of President is subject to a term limit. The President can choose who to recommend for the equivalent of ministerial offices, and for the Federal judiciary, but the final choice rests with the Senate. The President has no funds to spend that Congress (specifically, the House of Representatives, from which all money bills must originate) does not appropriate--the most he can do is drag his heels in spending money. The President may be the commander in chief, but he cannot declare war, and no money appropriated for military purposes may be expended for more than two years without being sent back to the Congress. Very little of that, if any at all, resembles the traditional powers of a King. If nothing else, the lack of hereditary succession and the term limit make a joke of the contention that the President resembles a King.

There certainly is a popular delusion among people who don't know the United States Constitution that the power of the Presidency is greater than it actually is. The Republican Congress which took power after 1994 was able to ham-string Clinton's agenda. Since the election of a Democratic Congress, Bush has been increasingly marginalized in the governance of the country. References to what Central Intelligence does, or what happens at Guantanamo Bay is just more evidence of a shallow understanding. If the President did truly wield an imperial power, you'd know damned little or nothing about these things. It doesn't matter what form of government you allude to, the abuses of power are no respecters of forms of government. Blair played just as fast and loose with the truth in the rush to war with Iraq as Bush did.



They are completely accurate, at least with regard to the actual government in Westminster, although the practice may vary somewhat from country to country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer can write financial and taxation policy which would require the vote of Congress in the United States. The Defense Minister can spend funds without answering to the Parliament once the funds have been appropriated--and unless there is a minority government, no minister is answerable for how funds are spent. Judges sit at the pleasure of the Crown--in the United States, the formula is quamdiu se bene geserit ("so long as he is well conducted"), which means that judges sit for a set term, or for life, unless they are convicted of a criminal offense--and that's what makes an independent judiciary.

The Prime Minister is not elected by the people directly, and is even less directly elected than a President who is chosen by the electors of the Electoral College. He or she is elected only by the voters in his or her riding or district, and by the insiders of the political party of which he or she is chosen to be the leader. There is, therefore, no executive which is independent of the legislative branch, and the chief executive takes a direct hand in the control of the legislative branch.



This is false, at least with regard to England and Canada. Judges can be removed by the Parliament, which is why they are said to serve at the pleasure of the Crown--in the United States, judges in the Federal system can only be removed upon conviction of criminal behavior, which means the Federal judiciary itself polices its members. Judges are nominated by the executive, approved by the legislative and are subject to the discipline of the judicial branch. There is no such clear-cut distinction within the Westminster system. The highest appeals court in England is the House of Lords--once again there is a blurring of the division between branches of government. Canada now has an independent Supreme Court, and many people are damned unhappy about it, too. It is a precedent which is not dear to the heart of Westminster systems.

****************************************

I suggest to you that your fondness for the Westminster system, and your silly claim that the President is an elected King, are evidence that you are yourself guilty of the bigotry of political belief to which you referred earlier.

As i said, i prefer the system in the United States. I could not say if it is superior and don't really care, but it is one with which the American people are generally happy, although like any population, they will carp about petty things they don't like. However, i would never make a charge so extravagant as you have made about "an elected King," both because it displays ignorance, and reeks of the intolerance of which i spoke earlier.

Hi Setanta,

must lead to intolerance…just that such generally does generally lead to intolerance.




I did make that ideology, and capitalism vs communism is a prime example, just as are fanatics of a particular party persuasion (Democrats V Republics, Labor V Liberal etc)



Did I mention perverted irrational bigotry? That is your add in and your comparison.

(Of course, with something as complex as an organised religion, there are many facets and views that can be used for comparison.)



You seem upset? I certainly never made a claim that I spoke to all Americans, nor that my view was right. Let me clarify - A number of years back, the office of your President confused me as to how it worked (it still does to some degree or other). I asked a number of Americans, and the picture that was drawn for me was that of an elected King. I said this, and made a couple of Americans upset…they then went on to explain it further, and it seemed to me that my description was fairly accurate.



I did say like an elected king.



Complete reading would help. I said "like when Parliament and the King fought for power"



Can't speak for other countries, only my own. They can be removed - but only for incompetence (and presumably criminal acts). With respect to the Parliaments of England and Canada removing Judges - perhaps it is the same with respect to incompetence, perhaps not. If you have a link I would be happy to read it, and if not, no loss.



Oh I'm not immune from holding beliefs dear, nor to thinking that I'm right. I mentioned earlier - it is human nature. You are of course, welcome to believe what you want.




You forgot your own previous statement.



.........


True enough, I have a lot to learn about your president. As for intolerance, how so? Have I called you names? (I notice you have called me a Bigot). Have I disrespected your views? (I notice you have mine). Accusations of intolerance can be rather hollow when you display intolerance in the same sentence. As I mentioned earlier…political beliefs dearly held can lead to intolerance. Unfortunately, you have provided a prime (though not particularly serious) example.

Oh God. I don't have time to read through all this, but anyhow vikorr, you describe "thinking religiously" as human nature. So it is. It's the whole idea of the Godspot. I've got one, just like you, and an atheist must be very strong indeed to keep it totally empty. I only realized it recently, but I've actually filled it. I've filled it with a more productive illogicallity. I won't go into it, but I have a little crazy belief that keeps me comfortable. Even as I am writing this, acknowledging that my belief is merely that, I still believe it. It's totally illogical as well, perhaps even more so than religion, but the potency is necessary because of the size. And it is far more productive than religion, and far less destructive. My point is that we have to learn to control our human nature and direct it in a better path.