Religion and identity

[blazeofglory]

Religions more often than not have been things of identity everywhere. Why? I wonder at times. Man can be happy and live in harmony without religions, but why we are attached so much to religious faiths.

We know religions bring up fundamentalists. And of course history validates this point. Read all sacred texts, they are based on blood and strife.

I am not against any religions. Man must be set free to choose a religion and hold faiths but when the same religions trespass others' domains we must stop it.

People all over the world are warring and there more records and of course numbers of people being killed when they fight for bracing their particular faiths.

Man identifies himself with a religion. Religions breed racism and if we all know this fact well why do we become fanatically inclined.

Is is out of our desire of heavenly joys that we follow a particular religion?

God, if he really exists, has nothing to do with religious faiths. Religions divide us and as human beings we war with one another to prop up particular sets of faiths.

When man defines himself in terms of the faith he holds he becomes aggressive.

[Hypercrit Htd]

-'religions about identity' can you be more specific?

-sacred text are sealed book, that why in Middle Ages only pope allowed to interpret as he thought to be infallible. For Muslim, only imam interpret yet many have no prove to be infalliable.

-People only been kill for religion? And not for oil?

-"religions breed racism"-Religion has help many people become more tolerant. For other it make them more wicked. But who has the evidence to prove that the world would have been better without religion?

-"desire for heavenly joys" Maybe, how about desire for Truth?

-God have everything to do with religious faiths.

-Man no need religion to be aggressive-he have had plenty other reason-like oil for example.

[JBI]

I think food is more of an identity factor than religion. If you take Islam and Judaism aside then, we can see that because of the importance of things such as food, it became essential for the religions to manifest personalized dietary laws, as a means of differentiating believers from non-believers. In fact, religious custom is a way of being part of the tribe, or not part of the tribe.

Food then becomes one of several major factors in cultural identity. Clothing too is essential to identity, hence religious clothing laws. What about appearances? There are plenty of things, from circumcision to female genital cutting, and tattoos and markings to boot. Those too are things that separate society, and are promoted by religion.

As a force, any doctrine will create a rift between those who follow it, and those who don't. One who does something a certain way automatically distinguishes himself from those who do otherwise. Every peculiarity then becomes an irritant, or an irregularity, that either must be tolerated, celebrated, or destroyed. As a result, women stop binding their feet in China, organizations push for a ban on female genital cutting, bodily harm goes under the question of legality. Cultures are destroyed/suppressed to meet a Western (more like American) standard.

Just look at, for instance, Native American culture in North America. It has been essentially squashed, for the sake of acculturating Natives to the perceived godliness of the White Man. Missionaries still flock across the world, as an attempt to rid the world of difference. It would appear that the least tolerated thing in the world is difference and uniqueness.

That being said, I do not suppose I respect all beliefs in this world, and I do not believe that things such as female genital cutting, and other forms of unconsensual, society-driven practices should be preformed, but I am in favor of preserving some form of ethnic acceptance, but not as a means of bragging about it, as the Canadian Government tries to do, yelling, "We are a multi-cultural nation. You guys are all <insert insult> because you aren't as multi-accepting as we are." The fact remains that tolerance can only be tolerance if it exists for its own sake, which it never seems to do.

Religion is merely one factor of ethnic makeup, but seems to have the spotlight now because of the scare-tactics driven by America against Muslims and poorer countries, and picked up on, and milked by such sophists as Dawkins and Hitchens, who pretend like they are teaching tolerance, and open-mindedness, but all they really preach is a different doctrine, a different way to include and exclude people. It's an intellectual bullying from the other side, which leads to the same results; promotion of hatred, and cash in the prophet's pockets.

That being said, I do not believe in god, but lets be honest, I am more afraid of people coming to kill me over my money than I am of them coming to kill me over my lack of religion. Economics has been pushed to the side of the dispute simply because it is easier to categorize some groups as other religions - given that they are from a different part of the world than America, and therefore were subject to different influences, and not the simple categorization that they happen to be from lower-income families in countries that have not had stable government because of economic corruption fueled by such hated countries. I don't see any rich suicide bombers, or rock throwers. Why would someone of that economic stature throw his life away? Why wouldn't someone of a lower economic bracket do it? What does he have to lose? What does he have to gain? Fame and money for his family, not to mention the 72 nymph virgins that he may or may not believe are coming to him.

[Hypercrit Htd]

Food and religion more apply to antiquity, not contemporary society.

"female genital cutting" not from religion, it from misinterpretation of religion

"promoted by religion" NO! promoted by ignorance.

"intellectual bullying" those people have felt threaten so they have repeatedly brought up past-hundred, thousands of year ago in order to bolster weak argument against religion-little of it relevant to contemporary society.

So as for all the negative thing done in name of religion-not strong argument either. Why? Your world would no be safe if not for religion-then you have more to worry
about than object-you would have fear about being kill every time you walk out the house because no one have any moral at all just like beast. Religion have make civilization allow culture-art, literature, music-everything that build up humanity-religion help that to thrive when it made morality which create safe environment in East and West. Problem is so many have blame religion when they should have place blame on government or bad religious leader, NOT religion. Why judge whole group of people by what some few do? Is it right to judge American Indian by the bad one that skin white people alive-then maybe it right to say that they deserve what they got! That racism is not?
Also, you're wrong about suicide bombers-many of them wealthy with good education.
As for the rest of what you ask, journalist have ask those same question. You can probably find more and better answer from internet newspaper article- have much to do with psychology.

[JBI]

Female genital cutting existed before Islam, just so you know, it is not religion, it is neither, it is societal culture. Food is as important now as it is in antiquity.

Religion does no such thing, as you say it does. The quietest time of growth are generally considered the dark ages, where society backed up a couple hundred years, and stopped progressing. Was it because of religion? who can say, weren't the Roman's of antiquity religious pagans? than what was it? Cultural clashes?

Religion is just one aspect of culture. People just target religion, like you seem to be doing (though I can never tell with you, no fault against you, but your English is rather choppy and hard to read).

You seem to be arguing for me while calling my argument into question, which seems like saying, "I'll wave your flag, but call it mine for the credit."

[Judas130]

Should create our own religions and dogmas to live our lives by? A religion benefits the man who created it. Therefore, you could say we worship the person who made the faith, as the faith was created upon his character. If we make our own faiths, and live life by our own morals and needs, instead of denying who we are and punishing ourselves with the branding of ''sin'', then we worship ourselves, and what we are as human beings: power that acts as a steward to this earth.

We should stop waging war, and focus on ourselves, and the promotion of our race, and worship who we are. The God you save may be yourself. People chose a religion best suited for what they wish to punish themselves of, out of guilt. Or a religion that is best suited to their desire. People wage war in the name of delusion. What has been spoon-fed to them from the mother's knee can become (somehow), in certain cases, reasons for war. Religion is seen by many as the main factor for war and through the ages there is no doubt that it has been, the Crusades and such. Is the Islamic God not the Jewish God? Or are they different, thus proving that we worship the faith's creator and not a God. If so, then surely we should worship who we are, and by understanding that we are of the same to everybody else, that we are all children of Earth, then war is pointless as murdering one of the same is as the same as murdering your brother or sister, or mother or father.

On Jihad, it must be understood that there are varying forms of Jihad, yet the one which currently being used as a reason for war is an unnoficial term 'by the sword' which is not found in the Koran. Other forms are relatively peaceful.

[Hypercrit Htd]

Female genital cutting existed before Islam, just so you know, it is not religion, it is neither, it is societal culture. Food is as important now as it is in antiquity.

Religion does no such thing, as you say it does. The quietest time of growth are generally considered the dark ages, where society backed up a couple hundred years, and stopped progressing. Was it because of religion? who can say, weren't the Roman's of antiquity religious pagans? than what was it? Cultural clashes?

Religion is just one aspect of culture. People just target religion, like you seem to be doing (though I can never tell with you, no fault against you, but your English is rather choppy and hard to read).

You seem to be arguing for me while calling my argument into question, which seems like saying, "I'll wave your flag, but call it mine for the credit."

What you accuse me of you just did yourself: i.e. It was you brought up "genital cutting" as being part of religion. My post clearly explain it not. So there you have seem to say "I'll wave your flag..." when you presented my idea but put it in different word. "Just so you know"? What typical colonial remark!!! Who are you to call me ignorant?

My opinion on food was that it for many the taboo become irrelevant-Christianity, nonorthodox Judaism...etc. Only Muslim have retained food taboo for longer time. Reason have to do with fact that Muslim country more traditional country-have not assimilated to European way.

The ancient Roman pagan became corrupt as have commonly happen in industrial society-consumerism destructive to traditional value, religion.

So for your information:
1.) What you say about "intellectual bullying" was correct. maybe you need practice what you preach.

2.) Religion has not bother me as much as people misrepresenting it, many of them religious.

[jgweed]

It is perhaps safe to say that religions have a cultural origin, and serve a social purpose. Belonging to a group seems to be a natural tendency in human beings, and if that group is identified with a god and with observable trappings, belonging to it 1) enhances identification with others within the sect by separation from the commonality while 2) defining and objectifying one's own selfhood. Taken to extremes, as with belonging to any group, can this not exemplify Sartrean "bad faith" since one becomes the group and nothing else, and allows the group almost complete priority over the self. This submersion of the individual can take many different physical manifestations, including unusual and distinct dress. In a good sense, the habits of nuns or priestly uniforms; in a bad sense, the military dress of Hitler Youth. [Not included are role-uniforms such as worn by police, waiters, bus drivers, etc.. These are social and economic role identifiers].

[Hypercrit Htd]

Applying secular philosophical construct to religion is exemplar of colonialist desire for phallic power over what secular philosopher views as 'colonization material'. Your philosophical paradigm not belong in this category yet like typical colonialist you took advantage of what you perceive as window open because of overconfidence in your bully power. Yet you have no reason to argue sacred book-you have not read them yet wish to be taken serious for argument against what you display no knowledge of. Thus you desire to colonize the argument by "objectifying" the "selfhood" of people you desire to subjugate. You are guilty of "bad faith" about individualism, identities of foreign peoples want to classify them as part of an unknown easily categorized Other you can assume power over in your need for their "submersion" in your wet philosophical dream of colonization. Why? Need for you to 'own' not just one foreign woman but as many of them as you can control-that's why you feel need to put all foreign people into one category-to subdue them, as a substitute for sexual satisfaction, a kind of rape that your culture will not censor you for. But beware! The natives are armed and dangerous and like sharks they smell the blood you spilled on their window panes.

[Scheherazade]

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Such posts will lead to thread closure.

[puppyshoes]

Karl Marx said that religion is the opium of the people. If people would just follow what their religion teaches and leave evil to the godless, our world would be a different place. My Church teaches that all good comes from God, even the most vile person that does a good work, that act was from God. There was a lot of talk about the sins of Western Christianity. Why did the Church split in half in the 9th century? Formly the break came about a hundred years later. First the Eastern Church had a fairly literate society, males had to attend school and many girls were taught at home. Justinian codified law and created a nation of laws. The Orthodox Church was seperate, some leaders were even excomunicated for various reasons! The Orthodox translated the Bible into modern Greek, for the times, they had missionaries in Serbia and were arrested for opening schools and giving them Bibles to read. The missionaries also had the nerve to translate the liturgy into their own language. The Roman Catholic Church wanted them to accept the doctrine that the pope could speak infalllibly on faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra. Also there was a change to the Creed. The Orthodox said that Jesus was the Prince of Peace, if there was a good reason to fight in the mideast, and there was, it was up to the civil governments to raise an army and go to war. It was said, How can we kill a person Christ died for? Different religions have different beliefs on this matter, Mohamed came with a "sword", he had a vision to "set all things right." Would it surprise you to know that Islam not only have the visions of Mohamed, but the entire Old Testament and The New plus some of the Apocryphal books never accepted by the Canonical Church. They don't believe that Mohamed is God, they revere him as a great prophet. If you want to know where they got their ideas about stoning and other civil punishments,you need to look no further than the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament. Read it some time. While you're at it read the Koran, if you don't like something, find out what it is you dislike!

[Mr. Vandemar]

Missionaries still flock across the world, as an attempt to rid the world of difference.

You are wrong. The goal of a missionary is not to convert, the goal of a missionary is to help. "Spreading God's Word" may be a message of many missionaries, but you have misunderstood the slogan. "God's Word" is love to all mankind and the helping of those who cannot help themselves, regardless of affiliation (social class, political ideology, race, religion, etc.). By demonstrating their faith and helping others they hope to set an example of "Christ-like" qualities. They do not go around "collecting" converts in hopes of building the Church-body as you believe, or in hopes of defeating another religion. They give help to those who need it and while doing so they spread the Love of God, whether it formally converts the person to Christianity or not (by instilling Christian ideals). Missionaries are not a tool of the Church. You are misinformed if you think so.

[The Atheist]

You are wrong. The goal of a missionary is not to convert, the goal of a missionary is to help. "Spreading God's Word" may be a message of many missionaries, but you have misunderstood the slogan. "God's Word" is love to all mankind and the helping of those who cannot help themselves, regardless of affiliation (social class, political ideology, race, religion, etc.). By demonstrating their faith and helping others they hope to set an example of "Christ-like" qualities. They do not go around "collecting" converts in hopes of building the Church-body as you believe, or in hopes of defeating another religion. They give help to those who need it and while doing so they spread the Love of God, whether it formally converts the person to Christianity or not (by instilling Christian ideals). Missionaries are not a tool of the Church. You are misinformed if you think so.

I think history proves you wrong to at least some degree here.

Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Scientologists and many other sects/cults do just go around collecting new converts. Missionaries have been used as a tool to create new converts for centuries.

I'm fairly cynical when it comes to religion and see the Roman Catholic Church putting all its efforts into converting people in disadvantaged regions because that's the only place they can achieve growth. That doesn't really go with the soul-saving hypothesis and the RCC is one of the less-undesirable churches, in my opinion.

Televangelism is another example of the same thing. If churches want to help, they'd be out helping rather than looking to sell videos for $19-95.

The idea of missionaries being there to help doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny from a historical perspective - where was the church on slavery? Need I mention the Inquisition, where far from helping, belief was compulsory? Moving away from christianity, the scenario becomes worse. Islam has missionaries as well - where are those missionaries on the subject of female oppression? Most mullahs would have women in burqa rather than being liberated.

[Guinivere]

Televangelism is another example of the same thing. If churches want to help, they'd be out helping rather than looking to sell videos for $19-95.


The Roman Catholic Church hosts countless charities, not just missionary work. You shouldn't blame comercial tele-evangelism on every christian church. It is certainly not what Jesus had in mind when he told his apostels to go out and spread the word. Missionary is often combined with charity abroad, but not necessary. Churches do help, not only sell.

[The Atheist]

The Roman Catholic Church hosts countless charities, not just missionary work.

Best we don't start on the RCC. ;)

Then I won't have to wonder how many Africans die daily because the Nazi in the Vatican won't allow contraception. I'll just stick with all churches having their own preservation higher up the priority list than helping people.


You shouldn't blame comercial tele-evangelism on every christian church.

I don't, which is why I separated them.


It is certainly not what Jesus had in mind when he told his apostels to go out and spread the word.

Yes - if only they'd remember that I'd probably go to church myself!


Missionary is often combined with charity abroad, but not necessary. Churches do help, not only sell.

I must try to do a cost/benefit analysis one day on that subject. I wouldn't be taking bets on the outcome!

[Guinivere]

@atheist I guess arguing with a cynic is pointless.

Besides when you talked about tele-evangelism you said churches, not the RCC or any other. I think that is throwing everybody in the same pot. In case you don't know any christian charities I might just mention WorldVision, Food for the Hungry, the Christian Disaster Relief and there are many others. Not every church is the same. Surely you must agree there even if you don't share their faith.

[The Atheist]

@atheist I guess arguing with a cynic is pointless.

:D Nah, even thought I'm an old cynic, I'm always open to facts.


Besides when you talked about tele-evangelism you said churches, not the RCC or any other. I think that is throwing everybody in the same pot.

That certainly wasn't the intention, which is why I separated the RCC and televangelists.


In case you don't know any christian charities I might just mention WorldVision, Food for the Hungry, the Christian Disaster Relief and there are many others. Not every church is the same. Surely you must agree there even if you don't share their faith.

I have a great deal of information on christian charities and will be the first to tell you that christians give more of their time and money than non-christians, but what I would like to calculate is the combined effects of the positive and negative sides of that charity.

For instance, the Salvation Army does sterling work with young mothers, alcoholics and bottom-dwellers, but they remain strongly homophobic. The RCC spends millions on food for the starving but denies people access to condoms. Also the RCC: Mother Theresa of Kolkuta. She netted the church millions of dollars (some say hundreds of millions) yet almost none of was spent delivering life-saving drugs to her charges.

That's why I'd like to be able to do a cost/benefit analysis. It would be meaningless to almost everyone, but I'd love to know what the facts are, because as with many things, the answer is obscured by rhetoric on all sides.

There's no doubt that some church groups provide positive outcomes - hell, my wife and I sponsor six kids through one christian charity - but I wonder whether this is balanced out by the darker side. Does the damage of a Benny Hinn, a Jack Chick or a Fred Phelps count against religion as a whole? As always, no easy answers.

[Guinivere]

For instance, the Salvation Army does sterling work with young mothers, alcoholics and bottom-dwellers, but they remain strongly homophobic.


A friend of mine is a strong suporter of tha Salvation Army and does active work for them. But trying to discuss what is wrong with almost any institution is pointless. Espcially for religious foundations that is futile. They don't like to change. An dwhere the doctrin is concerned change is often almost impossible. And basically their position is if we give food to the poor surely your doing good work. I guess in times they will have to change, because their position on AIDS, homosexuality and so forth is too old for this century.

I just hope I am hear to witness the change.

[NikolaiI]

Is is out of our desire of heavenly joys that we follow a particular religion?

God, if he really exists, has nothing to do with religious faiths. Religions divide us and as human beings we war with one another to prop up particular sets of faiths.

When man defines himself in terms of the faith he holds he becomes aggressive.


O best among the Bharatas [Arjuna], four kinds of pious men render devotional service unto Me--the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.

Of these, the wise one who is in full knowledge in union with Me through pure devotional service is the best. For I am very dear to him, and he is dear to Me.

In the beginning one searches for God because they want to find liberation or deliverance, but at a more advanced stage; one does not even desire any advancement, one only desires to please God out of love.

[PierreGringoire]

Even if we got rid of religions, that would not solve anything concerning the violent nature of man. I don't see it as a root problem-- the root problem is almost unbreakable. The idea of greed and ignorance are two fundamental and permeating forces--defining features (aspects) of man. If history was rewrit or relived with the exclusion of religions, the religions would be replaced by dangerous movements like nazism.

[AshleyMare]

I think religion, sorry if this is harsh, is simply for people who can't trust their own instincts and need someone to back them up and say, "Yeah that's right," even if its not. I don't identify myself with any religion because I firmly stick to my strange beliefs and nothing will change that. The people who identify themselves with religion probably don't have a lot of faith. Maybe I only think this though because I haven't seen a lot of the world and was raised with hypocritical Catholics (I'm saying the people were hypocritical not the Catholics, although....).

[Teeqs89]

I am thankful for the intellectual and less ignorant remarks here..if you want to see idiotic comments on religion and identity, type in Newsvine and search for the discussion on European protest on Israel's advancement..its ridiculous

[NikolaiI]

I am thankful for the intellectual and less ignorant remarks here..if you want to see idiotic comments on religion and identity, type in Newsvine and search for the discussion on European protest on Israel's advancement..its ridiculous

Oh I know the whole internet is filled with the trash. But here people are actually... er... intelligent enough not to sit down and spout stuff which must surely give them the worst of a headache later...