THE VEXED QUESTION OF RELIGION

Well, Scrat, i responded to that here:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=281435#281435

And, no my intent was not to make a personal remark about you when i made my comment about the intended character of these "initiatives."

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Well, Scrat, i responded to that here:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=281435#281435

And, no my intent was not to make a personal remark about you when i made my comment about the intended character of these "initiatives."

Setanta, the link you provided is the link to MY response to you. :wink:

0 Replies

No, it isn't, you have to read . . . i responded immediately after, on the same page, which is why you see your posting when you click that link. The posting of that page link was an ironic gesture on my part. Should you wish to, you need only go beyond your post to find my response.

0 Replies

I started with a quote from a member of parliament in the reign of Charles I. Long after his execution, his son was eventually restored to the throne. Eleven years in exile seems to have taught him some wisdom and tolerance. Bishop Burnet was his official confessor, and he wrote to a friend once to the effect that: " . . . the King has a strange notion of God's love . . . "

In New York magazine, in 1986, Pat Robertson was quoted as saying:

"I believe that he (Jesus) is Lord of the government, and the church, and business and education, and, hopefully, one day, Lord of the press. I see him involved in everything. And that's why I don't want to stay just in the church, as such. I want the church to move into the world."

"It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into [our] institutions [today] are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation."

What King Charles has said that lead Burnet to describe him as having a strange notion of God's love was: "The only things that God hates are that we be wicked, and that we design mischief." I am of the opinion that Pat Robertson designs mischief, as do Fallwall and all of their ilk. I believe that they are wicked in every sense of the term. Here's a little more of Robertson, from his The New World Order: "When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. 'What do you mean?' the media challenged me. 'You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, 'Yes, they are.' "

0 Replies

Religion, what is it? In my opinion it is mans conviction on how we should worship the unknown. The unknown being whether there is a God or not. As the song goes is that all there is or will we go to "a far, far better place than we have ever known" [ words borrowed from a movie}. The concept I suppose is a noble one the practice however, has the effect of spreading sarin gas since the outcome is just as deadly. No good has ever come from religions and none ever will. It is the friction and spark that has promulgated wars throughout history.

0 Replies

Au, on a side note, the novel A Tale of Two Cities ends with Sydney Carton on the scaffold, about to be guillotined, after having willfully substituted himself for the aristocratic frenchmen who is to marry Lucy Manette, the heroine, whom he deeply loves. His final statement was:

'Tis a far, far better thing that i do now than i have ever done. 'Tis a far, far better rest that i go to now than i have ever known.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Religion, what is it? In my opinion it is mans conviction on how we should worship the unknown. The unknown being whether there is a God or not. As the song goes is that all there is or will we go to "a far, far better place than we have ever known" [ words borrowed from a movie}. The concept I suppose is a noble one the practice however, has the effect of spreading sarin gas since the outcome is just as deadly. No good has ever come from religions and none ever will. It is the friction and spark that has promulgated wars throughout history.

A little far-reaching of a statement, IMO. Religion is a good influence on some. I think if you qualified your statement with "to my experience...", it would stand up better.

0 Replies

Setanta
Thanks, for waking up the sleeping brain cells.

0 Replies

Snood
Whatever good that religion does is far outweighed by the evil it provokes. Not based on my experience but the worlds.

0 Replies

With all due respect, Snood, i remain firmly convinced that religion never made a bad man good, nor has the lack thereof ever made a good man bad.

0 Replies

And likewise with due respect to you and Au, neither of you has experienced everyone's lives.

An analogy - the Army is a big, sometimes misguided bureaucracy. Critics call its lifestyle confining, and its tenets arcane and oppressive. Yet for some of us, it provides some things for us nothing else could. While true that it is anathema to some free spirits, foundation and structure and direction and momentum are found by some. The people who think the army is bad for a human being don't understand those who disagree, and I see like thinking in this discussion about religion. If I tell you I've experienced positive things from religion, and that I know people who are better off with their religion than without it, who is anyone to try to include us in their pronouncement that "religion is bad for the world" without exemption? I understand that my analogy isn't perfect because you could make the argument that the Army has intrinsic worth which makes it necessary for a society - defense. Rather than try to persuade you of any similar necessity for religion in society, I would simply ask you not to speak in absolutes.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Anyone having expertise to offer for a government contract may do so in the normal bidding or grant application process, and there is no need to involve the church, temple or whatever of their religious choice.

Are you claiming that faith-based groups have always had access to these contracts? Why all the furor over the faith-based initiatives then? Confused

Setanta wrote:

A church per se, however, has no expertise to offer the government, since the government is not in the religious business.

No one is suggesting that churches handle the "church" business for the government. It has been suggested that they can handle the "charity" business for the government.

Setanta wrote:

There is nowhere in what i wrote any basis for inferring that i believe equality of access is to be measured by outcome, rather, i'm pointing out that suitable government contracts are finite, and the probability that a significant segment of religious organizations who would fail of access for that reason is great.

Failing to receive a contract is OUTCOME. Being unable to compete for it is ACCESS. You seem to argue that because there are only so many contracts, not every faith is guaranteed to get one, so ACCESS would not be equal. That's not ACCESS, its OUTCOME.

Setanta wrote:

The only "discrimination" allowed in government hiring is based upon security considerations--if you believe that are others, then you need to back that up

*When the federal government hires prison guards for women's prisons, do they hire men? Perhaps they do, but I assume that they do not, and that there are some jobs that require a woman, or a man, or a person of faith. For these jobs I assume the government overlooks the discriminatory aspect of considering gender, faith, whatever because it is necessary. Could I be wrong? Sure, but I doubt it.

I knew a woman many years back who decided to undergo a gender change and become a man. (No, I am not making this up! I knew her/him personally.) When Linda became Richard, he was fired from his job as a substance abuse councilor at the local jail on the grounds that the job requirement was for a woman. Yes, this was a local/state issue. But she appealed her case up through the courts and lost. (I recognize that this is anecdotal and proves nothing, but I mention it to show part of why I think as I do on this specific point.)

Setanta wrote:

You've repeatedly stated that the intent of the first amendment is to provide access to government by all religions, but have never produced a shred of evidence for the claim--and i have provided evidence to the contrary, which you don't attempt to dispute, other than by your unsubstantiated claims.

On the contrary, I've repeatedly stated that it is AN intent of the 1st amendment to not discriminate against (bar access to) any one religion, I have produced support for this claim, which you choose to dismiss, and I have responded to your specific attempts to disprove this point, which again, you choose to pretend did not occur.

Setanta wrote:

You've now several times claimed that the government allows "variances for hiring for other reasons," but have never made any more specific a statement, or provided any evidence that this is true.

See my response above at *.

Setanta wrote:

How anyone can contemplate the abuse of contracts with the Defense Department and make the bald statement: "Like any government contract there would be oversight." -- is completely beyond me. That statement flies in the face of the historical record since the end of the Second World War. Our government is notorious for handing out money without any oversight.

I stated that oversight exists. You counter that it is not perfect. Do you think this is an argument to my point? It is not. Do you have any evidence that oversight would be less effective for a faith-based group than for a secular one? Please offer it.

0 Replies

Well, Snood, the absolute which i provided just now was offered as my opinion. I would further opine that just as the Army provides structure and discipline for many who are in search of those things, so religion provides a quenching of a spiritual thirst which many people have experienced. I think your Army analogy is a good one. I voluteered in 1970, and everyone i knew thought i was crazy. Had the Army not been the saddly demoralized organization i found then, had the venality of too many high-ranking career soldiers not been so obvious, i'd have made it a career, which was my plan from childhood. But the Army of which i had dreamed was not the army i found. I became disillusioned with organized religion at an age at which i had not yet formed any expectations, and this likely goes a long way to explainging how i ended up on the path which lead me to my present attitude. My last statement certainly qualifies as an absolute, but consider if you will that a bad man uses religion to "cover his tracks," whereas a good man may gravitate to religious practice because it offers a structure for the expression of self which is already present in him. If that same man were not drawn to organized religion, he would still likely develop an ethos to which it were possible to arbitrarily apply the value "good." That is the heart of what i meant in what i wrote.

As to the tenor of this thread in particular, i complain not of religion, but of it's exploitation by those with a political agenda. You don't want my opinions forced upon you; that is entirely reasonable. I don't anyone else's opinions forced on me, and i see the very real threat of that happening our society today. I revert to the statement by Charles II: "The only things that God hates are that we be evil, and that we design mischief." I don't have to be theist to see the value in what he said. I consider Robertson, Fallwell, Graham and their ilk to be men who design mischief, even were that not their intent; i am not convinced of their innoncence, for that matter.

0 Replies

Snood
For true believers I understand that religion fills an emotional need. However, in the overall scheme of things it has been the most divisive concept ever to come out of mans fertile mind. It has brought with it War, massacre, burning, religious cleanings, expulsions and etc. Those far out weigh the emotional need that it may bestow upon some. IMO it is a question of good Vs evil. The evil far outweighs the good.
Let me just add. I do believe there is a God or if you will a supreme being. What I do not believe is man's misguided attempts at worship, called religion.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Well, Snood, the absolute which i provided just now was...

For whatever it may be worth, this response to snood surprised me and I respect the way you stated your opinion to him. Reading it helped me (I think) to understand your point of view in a way that wading through our personal (and rather extreme) differences of opinion has not. I wonder whether we are each inferring too much in the other's words and trying too hard to destroy the other's position rather than to comprehend it.

Anyway, kudos on your excellent comments.

0 Replies

Thank you for your kind remarks . . . i'll be back to attempt to humiliate and belittle you later . . . got a lot on my plate this afternoon . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Thank you for your kind remarks . . . i'll be back to attempt to humiliate and belittle you later . . . got a lot on my plate this afternoon . . .

ROFLMAO!

Fair enough.

0 Replies

Scrat, at the beginning of this thread Setanta posted a long list of comments on the first amendment and on Jeffersons opinion about the wall of separation. Those comments tend to support the view of the first amendment as I have generally understood it, a view similar to Setanta's.

You replied with the following:

Scrat wrote:

I have no interest in tearing down the wall Jefferson--in his wisdom--intended be built, fortified and maintained. I wish only to see that wall remain and not be replaced by a greater wall, a bastardization of what Jefferson and others intended.

In whatever ways that beast called government might reasonably be required to interact with that beast called religion, it should do so without prejudice towards any religion or towards all religions. The government should no more be barred from hiring a religious organization to do secular work than it should be barred from hiring a religious person to do secular work.

I have seen this interpretation before in articles by religious fundamentalists. I am wondering if you would be kind enough to furnish us with a list of supporting quotations for your view. A list somewhat like the one presented by Setanta. If it is indeed the case, as you seem to be saying, that your view of the matter is identical with Jefferson's, I imagine that you have such support at your fingertips. I, myself, being no scholar, must confess ignorance on the point and a desire to be enlightened.

0 Replies

I agree with Au and Setanta (versus snood).

Also snood flips between "good for the individual" and "good for society". There is no automatic link between these two levels except by anthropomorphic leap of faith (sic). Group dynamics almost certainly follow different mechanisms to individual dynamics, as illustrated by the separate disciplines of psychology and sociology.

0 Replies

Sorry, you lost me at "disagree". I'll try to read your reply again after I eat...but, you think you could tone the verbiage down a couple clicks for a poor old average intelligenced guy?

0 Replies

THE VEXED QUESTION OF RELIGION

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know