Religious devotion in the United States

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The result of all this is that, when Kerry talked about religion (as I'm sure his aides and polls told him to), it came off as very forced and disingenuous.  He wasn't completely comfortable with it, and that can seem dishonest.  Clinton, of course, was quite comfortable talking faith, which is one major reason for his electoral success.  (The veracity of that faith in light of his personal life is another matter...)

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes I think so. Evern though I dont buy into what Bush believes I have no particular doubt that he does. Kerry on the other hand looked like he was "playing the game"

[Reveilled]

I'll be honest. I hate religion and all for which it stands. I view it as the cause of most of our world's problems, particularly with the idea of heaven. We accept the great loss of life every single day because we expect the dead to go on to a paradise where we will one day meet again. Think about it a little and I think you will realize what I mean.

 

However, I believe people should have the right to believe if they want to do so. Likewise, I should have the right to not believe if I choose. Yet, religious groups dont care to see a quid pro quo relationship in any aspect of life. According to them, religion is the right way, and many say Christianity is the only proper religion, and if you dont believe in it (religion in general in most areas or Christianity in particular in some areas) then you are a "heathen" and are destined for damnation and eternal punishment.  Furthermore, if you dont agree with them in any debate, you are automatically wrong due to a supposed "lack of faith" and that God will prove them right. Nevermind, the logic and science behind your opinion; you are wrong because you dont believe as they do.

 

Stop it. "Christianity", and "Christian Fundamentalism" are not the same thing. The Major churches all accept Science as a means to understanding God's creation, and as such see logic and science as a positive thing. The Major Churches all accept the Big Bang theory as the way in which the universe was created. Similarly, though not all the major churches accept evolution, most of them have said that evolutionary theory does not conflict with the teachings of Christianity. Religious people have been the driving force behind logic and science for as long as the two have existed. It is true that most obstruction of science is perpetrated by the religious, also, but the case you appear to be making, that all religious people are hate filled lunatics completely incapable of reasoning or thinking for themselves and dedicated to the destruction of independent thought, is patently false.

Now, there's no denying that many people, especially in the US, are fanatical in their Christianity. But such people make up a minority of Christians in the western world, and I'd bet are actually a (very vocal) minority of Christians in the United States as well. Tarring all Christians on the basis of the actions of Christian Fundamentalists is in my opinion roughtly equivalent to blaming the Democratic Party for Stalinism.

 

 

As a side note, many of the Founding Fathers in the US were Deists, which at the time was the preferred form of non-religion over Atheism, and some may have been Atheists. Those that weren't were absolutely dedicated to religious freedom, and making the United States a country for people of all religions.

[Cantousent]

The result of all this is that, when Kerry talked about religion (as I'm sure his aides and polls told him to), it came off as very forced and disingenuous.  He wasn't completely comfortable with it, and that can seem dishonest.  Clinton, of course, was quite comfortable talking faith, which is one major reason for his electoral success.  (The veracity of that faith in light of his personal life is another matter...)

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes I think so. Evern though I dont buy into what Bush believes I have no particular doubt that he does. Kerry on the other hand looked like he was "playing the game"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

...But why should we assume anything about what Kerry believes? At some point it becomes unhealthy to assume something about someone else's belief. Isn't that the sort of thing religious people level against atheists? "Ah, nobody is truly and ahteist at heart!" Unless there is some sort of compelling evidence to the contrary, I think we should take everyone at his word when it comes to his profession of faith or lack thereof.

 

As for you, Archmonarch, I don't believe for a second that you should be limited or judged based entirely on your age. However, you have a pronounced animosity towards religion. That's your right, and I won't speak against it. ...But observe the following statement:

 

"I view it as the cause of most of our world's problems, particularly with the idea of heaven. We accept the great loss of life every single day because we expect the dead to go on to a paradise where we will one day meet again. Think about it a little and I think you will realize what I mean."

 

Not only is it strident, but it is arrogant as well. Did you really believe that you were the first person to give word to these thoughts? Did you really believe that you were the first person to "think about it a little?" You have confidence, and that's a good thing, but you also take a lot upon yourself.

 

For my part, I didn't find your post offensive. It was full of excitement and conviction. Only your exuberance flows too freely and your conviction is untempered by experience.

[Commissar]

Stop it.  "Christianity", and "Christian Fundamentalism" are not the same thing.  The Major churches all accept Science as a means to understanding God's creation, and as such see logic and science as a positive thing.  The Major Churches all accept the Big Bang theory as the way in which the universe was created.  Similarly, though not all the major churches accept evolution, most of them have said that evolutionary theory does not conflict with the teachings of Christianity.  Religious people have been the driving force behind logic and science for as long as the two have existed.  It is true that most obstruction of science is perpetrated by the religious, also, but the case you appear to be making, that all religious people are hate filled lunatics completely incapable of reasoning or thinking for themselves and dedicated to the destruction of independent thought, is patently false.

Now, there's no denying that many people, especially in the US, are fanatical in their Christianity. But such people make up a minority of Christians in the western world, and I'd bet are actually a (very vocal) minority of Christians in the United States as well.  Tarring all Christians on the basis of the actions of Christian Fundamentalists is in my opinion roughtly equivalent to blaming the Democratic Party for Stalinism.

 

 

As a side note, many of the Founding Fathers in the US were Deists, which at the time was the preferred form of non-religion over Atheism, and some may have been Atheists.  Those that weren't were absolutely dedicated to religious freedom, and making the United States a country for people of all religions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's true, that most Christians are mellow and mild-mannered, but in the States, those aren't the spokesmen for the religion. Like it or not, it's Jerry Fallwell who's out there yapping, and then the 'religious right' goes and votes, and 99 times out of 100, they've voted the same way Fallwell did. Which makes it seem to those of us in the secular cheap seats that you just might agree with the guy.

 

And you're right, many of the founding fathers - including Jefferson - were deists, which is why I think they'd probably be turning in their graves if they read that article.

[Commissar]

Like everything in the world organized religion has its pros and cons. The pro is all the humanitirian work the religions of the world do to help people and the con is that they polarize people, debates, and cause problems for society in general.

 

I also feel sorry for the repulicans and the republican party. Its leadership has been highjacked by a few relgious nuts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't feel sorry for them. Leadership may have been highjacked by religious nuts, but they've gone along with it because it means they're in power.

 

The good thing is, at least some of them are starting to realize that maybe it's not such a good idea to flirt with theocracy. My father, for instance; very rational gent, but always votes Republican, mostly because he was a lifelong military officer. He swears he'll vote Democrat in the next election if this Kansas creationism thing doesn't get straightened out, though.

[Reveilled]

That's true, that most Christians are mellow and mild-mannered, but in the States, those aren't the spokesmen for the religion.  Like it or not, it's Jerry Fallwell who's out there yapping, and then the 'religious right' goes and votes, and 99 times out of 100, they've voted the same way Fallwell did.  Which makes it seem to those of us in the secular cheap seats that you just might agree with the guy.

 

And you're right, many of the founding fathers - including Jefferson - were deists, which is why I think they'd probably be turning in their graves if they read that article.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think one problem is that the religious left may believe in things like loving thy neighbour and helping the poor because of what it says in the bible, but realise that arguments based on secular reasoning are far more persuasive. Which presents the problem that even if the moderate christians are very vocal, they use secular arguments to support their beliefs, so the fact that a great many of the people who oppose the religious right are religious also doesn't really register.

 

Oh, and just to clarify, I'm not actually Christian, on the left or the right. I'm a Discordian with Libertarian politics.

[Archmonarch]

....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perhaps in my fervor, my point was lost. My dislike of religion does not preclude me from recognizing the good it has caused. I simply view the negatives as outweighing the positives.

 

Nor do I equate fundamentalists with mainstream religious folk. People have the right to believe what they choose. As Comissar said, however, the fundamentalists are the ones speaking up in politics, and, as such, they are the ones we consistently deal with in our country. Therefore, particularly as I live in the southern U.S., they are the ones with which I am familiar and on which I base my opinions.

 

@ Eldar: Actually, I have a distinct lack of self-confidence and sometimes attempt to "make up for it" with bravado in my debate. I apologize for any arrogance on my part. Know that it was not intended.

 

Religion seems to skip generations in my family, for some reason. My great-grandfather gave practically every cent he owned to the temple, sometimes even forgoing basic living expenses for his family. As a result, my grandfather completely rejected religion. My father seemed to feel a void in his life without religion and so began practicing again. In the process, he basically attempted to cram faith down my throat. This is probably the root of much of my anger and animosity towards religion. And I do not truly object to religion itself, so much as the institutions which are its current form.

[Tsel]

I totally understand how you feel Archmonarch.

I went to religious private schools my whole life as a child and I got tired of having religion shoved down my throat as well, but that is the point.

The point being it wasn’t religion that was ticking me off so much.

It was people trying to take my freewill away from me and force their views down my throat.

I have found that I can believe in G_D and Science and they can complement each other as well, but that is for the individual to find and figure out.

Belief in G_D does not come in one single pretty package.

A person standing behind G_D will see a totally different view than a person standing on the right of G_D, but even though they see things differently they are still looking at G_D.

I believe in creation and I believe in evolution.

One does not need to choose either one or the other.

They can choose to believe both or reject both.

That is freewill.

I still claim a certain faith; my personal views are a bit broader now.

Hence, my faith considers me sort of a heretic, but I could care less; because, their judgment of me means nothing.

I believe what I believe and freewill is mine.

 

Tsel

[Ellester]

btw, ellester, show me the clause in the constitution that says "separation of church and state."

 

sorry, it doesn't wash.  the ACLU is every bit as bad as the christian coalition from the other side.  a pox on both camps.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know full well it

[~Di]

Religious fundamentalism, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish or other, has been used over the milennia to wage more war, more bloody slaughter of heathens, infidels and non-believers, than any other single source of human behavior, bar none. In my opinion, of course, since I do not pretend to be a global historian of any merit.

 

Right now Christian fundamentalists are trying to turn America into a place where specific religious belief can be foisted upon the entire populace through law, and through the rhetoric of the pulpit which in some cases is almost as inflammatory as the hate-mongering crap spewed from Wahhabi madras schools. I think both situations are pretty damned dangerous.

 

The perversion of religion to gain power, territory, murder enemies, enslave populations, is not new. But it's still going strong throughout this 21st century world, from Africa to Asia and even into parts of Europe. Religion and ethnicity has been at the root of every major conflict in my lifetime. And it's at the root of every major conflict going on as we speak.

 

Although I was raised as a genuine thunked-and-dunked Southern Baptist, my disillusionment over the years between the pretense of religious love and charity versus the reality of religious hate-mongering and arrogance has pretty much soured me on all organized religion. To me religion has become the tool by which specific individuals attain the power, prestige, and position to control masses for purely personal gain.

 

It's a shame, because the glorified concept of religious goodness shines on the best of humankind; but the reality has brought forth the worst.

 

[/personal rant of little consequence] :D

[Lord Justonian]

I don't think religion itself has caused all of the problems that you speak of. Although atheist, I don't consider religion to be inherently evil or conducive of hate. It's simply human nature to use things that other humans value as excuses for war and hate. A lot of aggression in the past was caused not only by religion but also by nationalism (i.e., patriotism), a feeling of ethnic or racial superiority, and basically anything that a large group of people have. When a large group of people share something in common, it's easy for their leaders to use it to their advantage.

[SteveThaiBinh]

As a humanist (atheist), it was a sobering feeling to walk around a former Jesuit church in Lithuania which had been stripped of its artwork and treasures by the Soviet authorities and remade as a "People's Museum of Atheism" or somesuch. Fundamentalist atheism is as disturbing as any other kind.

 

To quote (near enough) Joyce Grenfell: "He was an extreme agnostic, than which there are few things more bigoted".

[Commissar]

I think the greatest difficulty in resolving this sort of issue is the unbelievable lack of comprehension we have between differing religious views.

 

And I don't just mean believers and non-believers. Religion (or lack thereof) is a deeply personal thing, likely different for every single person. I, as an agnostic (at best), cannot possibly fathom how someone could be so sure of God's will as to claim to be speaking in His name. Likewise, a true-blue, deeply religious conservative probably has absolutely no idea how I can have such doubts. It's natural for a human being to believe him or herself right in his or her convictions, and therefore anyone who disagrees is likely a fool. Now, we don't take this self-confidence to such a degree on everyday issues, but on things we see as of great importance, we tend to believe it's impossible we could be so foolish as to come to the wrong conclusion. On the religious side of things, such confidence is bolstered by thousands of years and hundreds of millions of allies; on the non-religious side, it's bolstered by the reliance on 'reason' and the comfort of not having to take something purely on faith.

 

And these are the two extremes of the spectrum; there are various scales throughout it, from the cheerful, extroverted Southern Baptists to the quiet New England Roman Catholics who don't talk much about their religion, and a thousand others.

 

We have these often heated disagreements precisely because we have absolutely no way of understanding the other's point of view. Those of us on the non-believer side can say things like, "We are all atheists; we just happen to believe in one god less than you. When you understand why you don't believe in Zeus or Mithras, you'll understand why we don't believe in your god." But such arguments don't work, precisely because faith isn't something that can be assailed with logic, just as a lack of belief cannot be assailed with faith.

 

We can say that the other side has a right to believe what it wants, but we'll never be able to say that they are correct, or else we'd be with them, wouldn't we? That's the crux of the problem.

[Kaftan Barlast]

As a humanist (atheist), it was a sobering feeling to walk around a former Jesuit church in Lithuania which had been stripped of its artwork and treasures by the Soviet authorities and remade as a "People's Museum of Atheism" or somesuch.  Fundamentalist atheism is as disturbing as any other kind.

 

 

ahh, sweet communism send the religious fools to the gulag. shoot the priests.

 

 

 

 

straight-up

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

If everything in your life is based around absolute belief in something it dosnt leave any room for compromise. Which is why you get conflict.

 

When I was reading the flatearth.org and the more and more ridiculous reasoning I realised it's not because they are stupid, or even crazy (in that sense of the word) it's because if they actually accept that one thing then their entire life view would collapse.

[taks]

You know full well it

[WITHTEETH]

The US was suppoer to be a Constitutional Semi Republic. The people don't have a vote.

Whats your opinions on this form of gov?

[Cantousent]

If Christians honestly thought that the United States government was working towards shutting down their religion, then the government would crumble. Furthermore, the Christians would win. ...Not by negotiation or discussion, but by sheer force of arms. For good or for ill, the people are religious. Even more problematic for atheists, the members of the military are just as religious or moreso.

 

The atheists can't eradicate religion in the United States. It's a fight they cannot win and a fight any self-respecting Christian should not want. The violence and turmoil would dwarf any terrorist act in our history by such a degree that even making the comparison in advance cheapens the potential loss of lives. I shudder to think of what would happen. The very idea scares the hell out of me. ...But, make no mistake, I view my freedom and my conscience as above man made laws. If it comes to a fight, I'm in it.

 

Luckily, we dont' have to worry about it. Maybe the Soviet Union was capable of shutting down religion, although they really weren't, but trying to imprison believers and shoot priests doesn't work here. As the ACLU acts against religion, the population resists their efforts even more stenuously.

 

For my part, I am against mingling religion and state. The primary reason is simple: I don't want to be on the receiving end of persecution based on my religion. Human history is long, but some people have looked back only a scant hundred years and decided that religion is on its way to extinction and that it's only a matter of time, a very short time at that, before religion is completely eradicated. Fair enough. We'll see. ...But don't put me in a position where I, and every other Christian, feel as if I will be persecuted for my beliefs. The end-game in such a scenario won't be pretty for anyone.

 

As for you, Archmonarch, I took no real offense at your post. I ask for no apology, but I'm more than willing to claim forgiveness if it means anything. A little arrogance now and then is not so great a sin. The vast majority of us here are a rather arrogant bunch.

 

Hostility towards religion is nothing new. There is virtually no argument against religion that is new. Plato blieved in a supreme being of some sort, but he also balked at the idea that God created matter. Why? Matter is imperfect, how could God have created it. Plato also believed in the gods. Confuses the hell out of me. There are just so many religious beliefs that keeping track of them is a pain. Not every religion leads to violence. Not every religion believes in life after death. Not every religion professes the existence of an all loving God. So, we cannot hold all religions accountable for the evils of society.

 

Moreover, mankind has been killing each other over higher ideals throughout it's span on the earth. The Greeks fought and died for freedom. Sure, there were other factors, but freedom was the rallying cry. The Soviets fought and died for communism. Then, of course, we muddy the waters by combining ethnicity into the mix. If we're to equate ethnicity with religion, why not add culture as well? If we add culture and ethnicity, why not talk about racism? If we add all those things into our discussion of war and mayhem, then we're no longer really talking about religion anymore at any rate.

 

Religious people have been the source of great evils in this world. Still, the issue is quite complex and naming religion as the source of the evils of mankind does not do justice to the issue at all. I thought that the "religious zealots" were the folks who put things in terms of black and white. Apparently, there is quite a market trading in stark claims supported by generalities.

[WITHTEETH]

1 reason BUsh won is because the baby boomers that were born. its one contributing factor. soon their numbers will drop and our goverment will evolve as it should, this was just a set back hopefully.

[WITHTEETH]

I was listeing to NPR today. THey had a spot about Pope Benedictine the XVI, he is going against relativism. Relativism is: You have your beleifs, i have mine, just because they are different doesnt mean that either of them are wrong.

If This Pope is against Relativism then he needs to be thrown out of the window. relativisim takes a step towards world peace and understanding. Its foolish when one group thinks they have the absolute truth, when just around the corner someone else has their version of it.

 

Sorry for posting so many in such a short time

[Cantousent]

That's okay, TEETH, you're not spamming.

 

The problem with relativism is this: if everything is relative, then where does our tolerance stop? I believe we should not indiscriminantly kill people. Should I be tolerant of someone who does? This is an extreme example, but true relativism is a trap. For what it's worth, I doubt that NPR gave a truly accurate accounting of the Pope's views. You, yourself, gave a rather simplified view of relativism at any rate.

[PhantomJedi]

You know full well it

[WITHTEETH]

Simplified, maybe Eldar, but it was accurate.

There is Normative Relativism. That no one should ever pass judgement on other with substanitially different values, or try to make them conform to ones own values. by David Wong

Your putting relatism down because of its most extreme forms. Sure its going to be messy at points, did y ou expect different from such a new idea?

[Cantousent]

The begining is a little bit extream.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[Cantousent]

Simplified, maybe Eldar, but it was accurate.

There is Normative Relativism. That no one should ever pass judgement on other with substanitially different values, or try to make them conform to ones own values. by David Wong

Your putting relatism down because of its  most extreme forms. Sure its going to be messy at points, did y ou expect different from such a new idea?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I just wonder exactly how the Pope approached the argument. If he said that relativism is wrong, I tend to agree. If he said that we should always take the extreme view of relativistic arguments, then... I dunno. At some point relativism becomes license to argue for anything. "There is no law by which a decent man must abide."