Religion still affects your life whether you believe or not

Your point about "moral right" doesn't seem to make any sense.

Doesn't every society that undertakes anything need to have a belief they are "morally right"? What would happen to a society that did not believe it was "right"?

For your argument to have any merit you need to show a practical difference between different goals. Every society has values. Saying "we stand for individual rights" has the same effect as saying "God is on our side". The statement "we are fighting for democracy" is very common now. These are similar statements because they are quick ways to express the values of a society.

This religious speech is just a society saying "our cause is just". Show me a society that did not believe this.

Don't let the religious speech get in the way. Any society needs a way to express a moral justification for any undertaking it endeavors whether this involves military action or social change.

Religion only provides a way of communicating the needs, goals and values of a society.

Again there are examples of religion being used for both good and evil.

But religion is just a means to an end.

ebrown

Your thesis has still ignored my point about religion being a predisposing factor to the masses which dangles the carrot of "eternal life" or wields the stick of "eternal damnation". Nor is it a creditable claim when you say religious leaders remain neutral
(Listen to Rev. Ian Paisley in Northern Ireland or read how a Catholic priest was a member of an IRA bomb squad) As for the Pope, the history of the Papacy in the middle ages or during the second world war, and the current scandals concerning paedophilia are hardly creditworthy...and we have not even touched on birth control policy!

Well you are entitled to stick with your thesis, but perhaps you will think twice about it next time you travel by air.

Have you attended a civil right rally? My parents were very involved in civil right in the 60s and I am old enough to remember what they were like.

Each march, the marchers would inenvitably sing. "We shall overcome ... Deep in my heart. I do believe. The Lord will see us through someday".

These powerful words would evoke an amazing feeling. We were all together. We were right where we should be. Our cause would succeed because it was just.

It simply didn't matter what was your feeling about "The Lord". These words communicated a feeling that what we were doing transcended every day life. They communicated unity and hope and justice.

During many of these marches ordinary people faced police dogs and water hoses and thugs with brickbats.

In spite of these things the movement remained resolute and peaceful. There was simply a "faith" that allowed ordinary people to resist the human tendencies to quit, or to seek vengence.

The leaders of the civil rights movement consciously used religion in this way. Dr. King often used the words of these songs in his sermons.

Religion speaks to the part of the human soul that transcends ordinary life. We long for the eternal. We seek the "faith" that our lives can have meaning. We are reaching for the ideals of "love" and "truth" and "justice".

These human passions for the eternal inspire acts of beauty and of brutality. But they are a part of being human.

I don't believe that you will be able to remove religions experience from humanity. Nor do I think its a good idea.

Agreed - removal may be impossible - but standing up against some of the more pernicious aspects instead of paying political lip service to a "mutual respect concept" may be viable.

BTW It is interesting that there was apparently no need for an active Civil Rights movement here in the UK, religious or otherwise. Is this perhaps correlated with the relatively higher degree of atheism here in the UK ? Its worth thinking about !

eb..;
re: your descripion
"During many of these marches "ordinary" people faced police dogs and water hoses and thugs with brickbats."
begs the question, where not the police, officially acting for authority, convinced they where upholding law and order? and, where not the "thugs" simply those who disagreed with your beliefs, and in turn believed that what they represented was "the truth".
I might personally agree with your reasons for marching, and the "need" for it, however we must always realize that the "other side" also are convinced they are in the right, and frequently on religious grounds!

The main point to be made here is there is never a justification for violence, since in their hearts, the opposition is simply "you" equipped with a diferent set of ideals, bravely defending them.

Perhaps on the Isle of Britain there was no real civil rights movement, but I note that in Londonderry, Northern Ireland in January 1972, there was an active civil rights movement and march, which ended in the Paras shooting 27 unarmed marchers, some in the back, some while laying prone on the ground, 14 of them dead.

But the issue discussed mostly by fresco, brownie and myself is that religion has provoked some of the worst humanity has shown to its brothers and sisters, but also some of its best.

As brownie said there is estimable good works that flow from religious thought, and these need to be mentioned and measured in the balance when attacking religion. Mentioning the good done in religion's or that god's name doesn't mean one dismisses the travesties done as well.

I have never thought of myself as either religious or spiritual, but the more I read Thomas Merton, (and his friend Thich Nhat Hanh) the more I value what religious/spiritual understanding brings to one's life, and I am sore put to dismiss out of hand religion because its messages can be distorted and used to promote violence, hate, or corruption. Religion is but a tool for enhancing self-awareness, and while one can condemn it when the tool is used for evil, it can also be used for good. It depends and lies with each individual to use it wisely.


Distinguishing ego from true self
(Quotation from Thomas Merton)
"We find God in our own being which is the mirror of God."
(p. 134)

"God's presence is present in my own presence. If I am, then God is. And in knowing that I am, if I penetrate to the depths of my own existence and my own present reality, the indefinable am that is myself in its deepest roots, then through this deep center I pass into the infinite I am which is the very Name of the Almighty.

"My knowledge of myself in silence (not by reflection on my self, but by penetration to the mystery of my true self which is beyond words and concepts because it is utterly particular) opens out into the silence and the subjectivity of God's own self."

30 centuries ago in India it was also said, "Tut tvam asi…….I am It. That which one looks for in the outermost regions of life is deep inside oneself.

Few of us have the guts to go deep inside ourselves for wisdom, fewer still find it, but it is nowhere else, and if religion points the way, it can't be all bad.

kuvasz;
very similar ideas to Tiehard de Chardin, a Catholic theologian;

and impossible to dissagree with;
But, containing the unnecessary step of applying the term "god" to that basic internal humanness lying within us all.
If some need to hang a "handle' on it to be able to access its benefits, so be it!

To me what is important, is the realization that the same route that I took to address what is of ultimate importance here and now, can also be taken by others, in good faith, but with different results, usually born of different input, and it is paramount to respect the "process", the person, and their "path", and rather than dismissing them "out of hand" engage their honest interest in working together for a higher purpose.

well, i think that is where the theological idea of the Christ comes in to play, viz., all humans are bound togther in their innermost selves by the same thing, the Christ. the buddhists would simply refer to it as buddha consciousness. which is, i think what merton realized as he understood more and more of zen buddhism....but it seems more than mere syncretism.

the west personalizes their deities, the east doesn't.

Well said kuvasz!

But you pulled the punch you beat me to. The tyranny of the British Empire has been beaten back many times by movements that used distinctly religious rhetoric to inspire the masses. Look at Ghandi, Ben Gurion and even Thomas Jefferson.

The point is attacking religion does not solve problems or prevent violence. The people who tried to stomp out religion for this very reason failed miserably -- Look at Mao and Stalin for example.

Finally fresco suggests I think twice before flying. I don't -- but that is becuase of my faith in mathematics (it is still much safer to fly than to drive).

But his point is about terrorism. It is certain that we will not stomp out terrorism by attacking Islam.

To end terrorism we must address the root causes of the conflict. The problems in the middle east stem from a struggle over land, difficult economic problems and a deep seated anger over injustice.

Many of us are working to solve these problems and make a more peaceful world...

and God willing we will.

BoGoWo and kuvasz.

Once more I stress the difference between "reasoned debate" at the individual level and "pragmatic action" at the group level. We would all agree (I hope) that religious fervour is common and can lead to catastrophe, simply because of the dynamics of the mob. It can also be used to rationalize injustice by claiming divine authority (for example over the roles of weaker members of a community) Less common are the quiet and thoughtful "saintly" activities of the Mother Theresa variety. I speak here about numbers of persons involved, and it seems to me that on balance, the bad outweighs the good. Now if we can eliminate "religion" from BoGoWo's "higher purpose" then perhaps we can adjust the balance somewhat. That's the big one !

You will pardon the expression, but "AMEN!"

OK,

The philosphical part of this discussion is pretty well covered. What I want to know is what are you advocating "on the ground" as it were.

This is a big task. I think some 80% of Americans (I don't remember the stat and don't feel like getting the link right now) consider themselves religious. If I remember right the majority of us believe in heaven.... and most of those probably get solace from this belief.

But where do you start...

I suppose we could start by attacking people based on their religion. We can label people "religious fundamentalists" if we don't believe in their ideas. We can brand certain religions as "violent".

The problem is I am pretty sure people will hold to their religions. The fact is, they feel it adds something to their lives.

Should we put anti-religious messages in schools? Should we pull down mosques, synagogues and temples. Rewrite the Declaration of Independence?

So what are you saying -- really?

If you don't come up with a practical manifestation for your hatred of the religious, it will remain just an abstract philosophical discussion.

Excellent, Ebrown_p. I personally think a lot of the vitriol toward religion is a bunch of maladjusted personal issues, masquerading as some kind of muckety-muck social argument for the righting of wrongs done by religion.

But bravo for trying to get them to crystallize their neverending lament about religion's evils into something cogent. And good luck.

Yes, we can. Probably, we shouldn't -- and I know I would not be willing to paint with such a broad brush. But it is interesting that you propose it the way you do -- almost as though you are indicting people who differ with you as broad-brush painters.



I have no doubt but that it does -- and I am happy for every person who has something "added to their lives" by their religion. I know my agnosticism adds a tremendous amount to my life -- and am sure you are happy that my agnosticism adds to my life -- just as I am sure you are happy that other people's atheism adds to their lives.




You are doing that thing again. Making an accusation that those of us who disagree with you on this issue are idiots -- and you are doing it in a back-door way. Bad habit! Keep doing it and it will become almost impossible to break.

No -- I for one do not want anyone to put anti-religious messages in schools. I want the schools to teach kids -- which at times is going to involve mentioning religion -- and doing comparative religion themes. But I do not want pro or anti-religious messages there.

Keep schools and the government out of the religion business. It is not something the government should be involved with -- in either direction.




And again!!!

I am going to make an assumption that the truth has finally gotten through to you -- and your frustration with seeing the strength of our side of this issue has thrown you into a tizzy that causes you to propose silly things.




Nothing wrong with abstract philosophical discussions.

Most of us who are on this side of the coin just want the religious stuff kept out of our schools and out of government.

Do your religion in the privacy of your own home.

There's a parallel thread going on (Setanta) about religion in schools. My contribution to this is that I applaud the American system which has hitherto kept public schools secular, in contrast to the British system in which religious "education" is technically mandatory, and in which separatist "faith schools" receive public funding. The practical steps in addressing the balance are about teaching children they are human beings first and foremost with the same feelings and needs as every other human being on the planet and only by accident of birth do they have any ephemeral group membership, be it religion, skin colour, or nationality. Nor do I think that parents necessarily have "rights" over the way a child is educated, on the contrary - if education is about socialization then "society" should take precedence in sustaining its own "health" (but thats another debate).

We need a positive answer.

May I suggest that we institute a "Truth in Religion Act" similar to the "Truth in Advertising " and the libel laws that are currently on the books. Some disclaimers should be required of every public religious utterance such as we require on paid "infomercials" and political speeches on TV. Such as.

"The views and actions of the Rev. Jack Mcloud have been arranged by and paid for by the The Fifth Baptist Church Building Fund .
These views represent the views of the Fund or the Reverend Mcloud and may have no basis in reality.
OR

Surgeon Generals Warning.
Clitoridictomy or circumcision may be Hazardous to you childs health, happiness and reproductive ability.
OR
"This program has been brought to you by the Church of God.
There is no reason to believe that any thing stated here has any relation to reality--- (whatever that is)
OR
United Pentiarcharal Churches disclaims any responsibility for any damage that the serpents may do. If a snake bites you you should have your faith reaffirmed at our two week revival and camp meeting. Only $400.00 per person for the complete service. Meals extra.
OR
Children under the age of eighteen are prohibited from entering Saloons, Churches,Nude Dance Halls, or Houses of Prostitution. These places are often frequented by persons of questionable character and The State of WV takes its responsibility to our future citizens seriously.
OR
Stating as fact that which cannot be acertained is prevarication. (lying)
Should be punishable but I don't think that the politicians or priests would vote for the last measure.

So good people, When we see a sign saying "Jesus Saves" would it be out of order to ask for a prospectus

Could we please have a photograph of "The Shining Path

Before I join your organization may I have a some recomendations from your satisfied customers that have "passed on"
Mech

Mech it's nice to see a sensible approach,
that reads like "stand up comedy"

In a more serious note I would suggest a cease fire;
keep your proselytizing out of my face, my schools, (and my life)
and I will assure you, that you will never hear about the fact that, I don't believe anything, that you "don't" talk about!

Mech, LOL


ebrown, no one said that we should "attack" people based on their religion (Leave it to them to attack each other!) or raze churches, etc.

We just want the government to be neutral instead of using its powers to foster the majority opinion.

The slogan "God Bless America" represents religious thinking at its worst. Are we so much better than everyone else in the world that we should get special favors from God? Should he ignore droughts and starvation in other parts of the world and bless us with abundant harvests so that we can gorge ourselves into obesity? Should religious objectors be allowed to deny birth control funding to overpopulated countries where millions of children die before their 5th birthday? Is it OK to wage war on any country we chose and impose our superior philosophy?

The problem with religious beliefs is that they claim indisputable authority for whatever nonsense that they want to impose on everyone else. What they think that their God demands may not be ethical or in the best interests of the majority, but you can't reason with fanatics.

If believers would stick to worshiping their gods in their own homes and synagogues, I would have no problem with religion. But when they knock on my door, demand that myths be taught in science class, derail medical research, and use our military to launch crusades, they have crossed the line. IMO, we need laws to ensure that religion stays in its own narrowly defined sphere.

The absolute certainty of religions is in constant conflict with democratic principles, where it is the will of the people that is expressed, not the will of a higher power, or a god.

Note, Heaven is not a democracy, and as in heaven so too on earth for many fanatics.

Unfortunately, to fight the religious fanatics in this battle one must necessarily examine the basic premises of their arguments. When this is done, the hoary accusations of religious intolerance are cast at the examiner. While it is not true, it is an effective way to rally the troops of religious following. Notice the recent attacks on evolution, homosexual behavior, and other things that are a part of the dogma of the fundamentalist Christian communities. The attempt of the religious right to use their dogma as support for their social actions can only be countered by undermining the dogma, and this is a basic attack on their religion. Reason alone does not work, for reason is not the basis for their positions. It is faith. They are not the same.

It must be understood that to engage these people one will be branded anti-religious. So be it. Only the uses of modern scientific method can be used effectively to counter the religious right's arguments. It is little wonder then that they do not want full examination of issues based upon science, for science, for reason is a threat to them and undermines their faith.

Those who believed in the total righteousness of their causes have perpetrated the most horrible acts of infamous inhumanity. The eternal struggle of humanity is always the fight of certainty versus knowledge, whether from the certainty of a religious congregation killing its heretics, an alleged Aryan master race slaughtering its inferiors, or of total faith in the historical inevitability of Marxist dialectic materialism wiping out its counter-revolutionaries, the certainty of the adherents allowed them to do horrible things. And as Bob Dylan sang.

"But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
and a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side."

if you want to piss-off a religious fanatic, simply ask"Why?" every time he opens his mouth about god.

Yes "certainty" is THE problem.

On a parallel thread (sumac) I have just illustrated the infinite regress of observers which Heisenberg like makes "Ultimate Truth" a fiction.

(kuvasz may note here that Gurdjieffs trancendence of "self" to "Self" is an attempt to move some way out along the regress but therein lies for him "personal growth" NOT "the salvation of mankind" which Gurdjieff claims is impossible. Also this transcendence is essentially observational and never involves "interaction". Gurdjieffs Kabbalistic "Absolute" is of course an attempt at closure of the regress.)