The religious faithful and their protectors

[G L Wilson]

The religious faithful are weak but not nearly as much as their protectors, the authorities. In Australia, the Prime Minister is a self-proclaimed atheist who fawns over the religious like a mother hen does to her ducks. If this is democracy, I am truly deceived. It makes me angry. The smallest spark can start a fire in me. I don't like to be angry.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't like to be angry.
You just need to chill out (http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/Evo_lee/Marijuana.png), man.

[Stanislaw]

The religious faithful are weak but not nearly as much as their protectors, the authorities. In Australia, the Prime Minister is a self-proclaimed atheist who fawns over the religious like a mother hen does to her ducks. If this is democracy, I am truly deceived. It makes me angry. The smallest spark can start a fire in me. I don't like to be angry.


You wouldn't like me when I'm angry :D (sorry)

The division of church and state is often very muddy waters. Officials typically will often sit perched (like the fiddler on the roof) between two opposing beliefs and sway back and forth depending upon which group will carry the most votes... but will not sway so far as to lose the interest of the other view point.

For democracy I have always loved the words of Winston Churchill: Democracy is the worst form of government, but the best there is. (paraphrased to the extreme)

Personally, I feel the separation of church and state is impossible in the 'western' culture, as many of the laws, practices and traditions are based on religious doctrine. The only form of government that would reflect a true separation would be anarchy.

[Calidore]

Also, since the vast majority of people are religious in some way, the vast majority of elected officials have that built-in conflict of interest. Then it becomes a matter of how strong an influence the church is in their thinking and that of their particular constituents.

Similarly, how many of the people who signed the document stating "...all men are created equal" were slaveholders? At the time, blacks weren't people, so no contradiction in their mind. So you have people trying to improve government, but who are still limited themselves and don't even realize it.

Which brings out the problem in any form of government. Parents can govern kids because their lives and thoughts are fully developed. They can support, protect, and teach the kids. Ideally, the people who govern the masses would also be a step above, but they're from and the same as the masses, for better or worse. There are always exceptions (Lincoln, etc.), but until the exception becomes the rule, the world will stay as it is.

[Vonny]

You just need to chill out (http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/Evo_lee/Marijuana.png), man.

I don't usually follow links, but I took a risk on that one... :lol: Good ole USA!! There's something to be said for us.

All men on deck!

[BienvenuJDC]

The religious faithful are weak...

You are the one who can't control your anger, and you call the "faithful" religious people weak?

Let's first try to give some credence to your statement. HOW are they weak?

[G L Wilson]

You are the one who can't control your anger, and you call the "faithful" religious people weak?

Let's first try to give some credence to your statement. HOW are they weak?

Do they believe in conventional medicine? No.
Do they believe in science at all? No.
Do they believe in imaginary friends? Yes.
Do they believe in magic? Yes.

They are weak, because they cannot separate fantasy from reality.
They are weak, and we are strong.

[Calidore]

Do they believe in conventional medicine? No.
Do they believe in science at all? No.
Do they believe in imaginary friends? Yes.
Do they believe in magic? Yes.

They are weak, because they cannot separate fantasy from reality.
They are weak, and we are strong.

Those first two statements are patently false. There are sects that don't believe in conventional medicine, the most famous being the Christian Scientists, but those groups are a very small part of the whole. And while there are obviously significant conflicts between religion and science, "at all" is way too much of a generalization.

And I'm sorry, but "they are weak, and we are strong" is utter crap. I wrote in a different thread a while ago that "There are compassionate religious people and compassionate atheists. There are strident, holier-than-thou religious bullies and smug, deeper-thinker-than-thou atheist bullies. People are the same, whichever group--religious, political, philosophical--they belong to."

Intolerance is weakness. The need to separate "us" and "them" is weakness. The need to ally and surround oneself with like-minded people like a street gang is weakness. And unfortunately, these are universal human behaviors.

By all means one should believe in one's beliefs, but there's a difference between confidence and arrogance.

[BienvenuJDC]

Do they believe in conventional medicine? No.
Do they believe in science at all? No.
Do they believe in imaginary friends? Yes.
Do they believe in magic? Yes.

They are weak, because they cannot separate fantasy from reality.
They are weak, and we are strong.

I'm religiously faithful and...
I believe in conventional medicine,
I believe in science (not far fetched theories with no evidence though),
I don't believe in imaginary friends,
I don't believe in magic.

(but for those who think that something came from nothing as the hypothesis of evolution implies....now that is magical)

[Venerable Bede]

They are weak, and we are strong.

Says the schizophrenic who's incapable of an intelligent post.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Do they believe in conventional medicine? No.
Do they believe in science at all? No.
Do they believe in imaginary friends? Yes.
Do they believe in magic? Yes.

They are weak, because they cannot separate fantasy from reality.
They are weak, and we are strong.
I'm pretty anti-religion myself, but those broad generalizations are such BS it's astounding one could really believe such nonsense.

[G L Wilson]

Do they believe in conventional medicine? No.
Do they believe in science at all? No.
Do they believe in imaginary friends? Yes.
Do they believe in magic? Yes.

"Do they what? Oh, no. Not me, not us." It'd be pathetic if it wasn't so ridiculous.

[Alexander III]

I am not sure if many are you are acquainted with the great russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. He was born in 1918 and he died a couple of years ago. He fought against soviet injustice all his life, resulting in him having stings in the gulags and suffering and seeing the worst of communist russia. In 1974 he was exiled from the soviet union, and he returned home after its fall.

His is a great writer and one of those remarkable men of which each generation has but a handful.


Towards the end of his life, this is what he had to say on the failure of the russian revolution and the subsequent soviet regime:

"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."

I think those words are beautiful and they express what a history book or a social analysis will never will be able to. Also I should mention that I am an atheist.

[Venerable Bede]

I'm sorry, but this just is not true. Many established universities were first set up as preacher's schools. MOST of the hospitals were established by churches or Christian philanthropists. Most of the nations, that have banned God and/or churches, have been dramatically been effected (not being able to handle the social programs alone). Christianity does not prevent progress, but it has promoted progress. Let's try to see things reasonably and truthfully here. And let's stop the intolerance.

Good words, people always complain that Christianity limits progress. As an example they cite the medieval era and how the Christians pushed progress backwards from the advanced, pagan Romans, when in reality, it was the pagan Germanic invaders that were the new leaders of Europe directly after the fall, and who were responsible for the lapse. Only after they were converted to Christianity, did they slowly begin to regain the technology and culture lost from the fall of Rome.

Societies that have rejected God, have degenerated into anarchy. Take, for instance, the French Revolution. The leaders cast off religion completely, even going so far as to create ten day weeks and removing the day of rest. The result of the French Revolution was chaos and terror, and the massacre of the enemies of whoever held political power at that moment. Compare that to the American Revolutionry government, which was founded on some religious principles, and survived without slaughter and mayhem.

[BienvenuJDC]

I

You're misunderstanding me. I clearly said I don't care if some people are religious. That's my tolerance. Are you complaining that I am intolerant of cover-ups of child abuse? Or does it bother you that I am annoyed that people would like to murder me? Should I be tolerant of greed causing others to suffer? Why should I be tolerant of these things?

You should NOT tolerate hatred and/or such behavior. However, I think that this is the exception, not the rule concerning religious people. It's no different than implying (or directly saying) that all atheists are murderous hateful people. They are not, nor are religious people. Just because one can find an example of a religious person who was a murderer or a child abuser, that does not make all (or even most...or even 10%) of religious people like that. The goal of Christianity is to love one another and to help each other out. And I think that the majority of Christians at the very least make an honest effort to do so.

[Paulclem]

I am not sure if many are you are acquainted with the great russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. He was born in 1918 and he died a couple of years ago. He fought against soviet injustice all his life, resulting in him having stings in the gulags and suffering and seeing the worst of communist russia. In 1974 he was exiled from the soviet union, and he returned home after its fall.

His is a great writer and one of those remarkable men of which each generation has but a handful.


Towards the end of his life, this is what he had to say on the failure of the russian revolution and the subsequent soviet regime:

"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."

I think those words are beautiful and they express what a history book or a social analysis will never will be able to. Also I should mention that I am an atheist.

I agree with you Alex.

I think here in the UK, Canada and US we have been very lucky over recent history in a way that the Eastern Bloc countries have not. During the Soviet era, Christianity was a real, supportive, potentially revolutionary underground force that helped many people. In the UK we have had a number of Polish immigrants who are strongly Catholic, and this is why.

Bienvenu talks of intolerance to religions, and I think he is correct. The negative aspects have been gone over many a time, but the positives - learning, universities, writing, charity, socialism through the Methodist movement etc etc have been promoted by religious people, and are rarely mentioned.

In terms of Government - particularly Authoritarian Government - religion does also provide a counter morality to the prevailing political one. Some religious people saw the evil in the Nazi system due to their religious values. The soviet example has been discussed. Is this why religion was suppressed in China too? It provides a potentialy damaging estimate of the state.

Of course everyone should be free to choose to believe or not, but I do see religion as a whole getting unfair treatment on this forum.

[Varenne Rodin]

Deleted.

[Paulclem]

I'd just like to point out that I wasn't referring to your conversation with Bien, Varenne, just to the general view across the forums.

[Varenne Rodin]

Thank you, Paul. I appreciate that, and your point of view.

To everyone else: I understand the intentions. I'm not angry with any of you.

[OrphanPip]

Societies that have rejected God, have degenerated into anarchy. Take, for instance, the French Revolution. The leaders cast off religion completely, even going so far as to create ten day weeks and removing the day of rest. The result of the French Revolution was chaos and terror, and the massacre of the enemies of whoever held political power at that moment. Compare that to the American Revolutionry government, which was founded on some religious principles, and survived without slaughter and mayhem.

Yikes, could you twist history more to your own subjective nonsense. You're ignoring the fact that the Catholic Church was a major land owner in pre-revolutionary France, it formed part of the aristocratic ruling class. Also, it collected taxes from everyone in the country. Overthrowing the church was a necessary step in overthrowing the oppressive undemocratic regime. Do you give a seat at the table to your oppressor when you start planning your new state?

The Reign of Terror had nothing to do with a lack of religious convictions, and everything to do with the political struggles. The Catholic Church actively resisted the new French regime, under the orders of the pope. The church made itself an enemy of the new state and raised rebellions against it. Thus, why there was an anti-Catholic backlash, which eventually led to a state concept of official Deism, not atheism. (Robespierre was a Deist not an atheist)

Moreover, the French revolution culminated in the code civil, a secular legal system that spread religious, sexual, and personal freedoms across Europe in the wake of Napoleon.

[Varenne Rodin]

I'm glad Pip got here. I was feeling quite the odd one out.

[G L Wilson]

The victims of the Church going to get justice from the Church when it crumbles which is never.

[Paulclem]

Yikes, could you twist history more to your own subjective nonsense. You're ignoring the fact that the Catholic Church was a major land owner in pre-revolutionary France, it formed part of the aristocratic ruling class. Also, it collected taxes from everyone in the country. Overthrowing the church was a necessary step in overthrowing the oppressive undemocratic regime. Do you give a seat at the table to your oppressor when you start planning your new state?

The Reign of Terror had nothing to do with a lack of religious convictions, and everything to do with the political struggles. The Catholic Church actively resisted the new French regime, under the orders of the pope. The church made itself an enemy of the new state and raised rebellions against it. Thus, why there was an anti-Catholic backlash, which eventually led to a state concept of official Deism, not atheism. (Robespierre was a Deist not an atheist)

Moreover, the French revolution culminated in the code civil, a secular legal system that spread religious, sexual, and personal freedoms across Europe in the wake of Napoleon.

Yes - I think of the histories I've read of Napoleon, and in some things - his sensible reforms and the legal system - he isn't given much credit.

[Paulclem]

From my own Buddhist Tradition - Tibetan - we have the example of a religion subverting and opposing the state, but under the direction of HH The Dalai Lama, conducting a pacifist campaign. This is despite the arrests, imprisonment, mistreatment and an engineered famine which killed over a million Tibetans.

Surely the logical thing is to resist with violence, but to do this would be to miss the point of Buddhist teachings. The Chinese are not resisted violently precisely because it would threaten Chinese lives. Individual life is valued above a system - any system - even the Tibetans' own religious traditions.

[Venerable Bede]

Yikes, could you twist history more to your own subjective nonsense. You're ignoring the fact that the Catholic Church was a major land owner in pre-revolutionary France, it formed part of the aristocratic ruling class. Also, it collected taxes from everyone in the country. Overthrowing the church was a necessary step in overthrowing the oppressive undemocratic regime. Do you give a seat at the table to your oppressor when you start planning your new state? The Reign of Terror had nothing to do with a lack of religious convictions, and everything to do with the political struggles. The Catholic Church actively resisted the new French regime, under the orders of the pope. The church made itself an enemy of the new state and raised rebellions against it. Thus, why there was an anti-Catholic backlash, which eventually led to a state concept of official Deism, not atheism. (Robespierre was a Deist not an atheist)

How is it twisting history? I didn't say that the Catholic Church was great. It made sense for them to reduce its power, and I personally think it needed that reduction. However, you cannot deny that the leaders of the revolution were against organized religion and did their best to suppress it. Yes, it may have been mainly politically motivated since the church was very politically active (the Vendee rebellion among their biggest contribution) , but the fact remains that they attempted to remove themselves as much as they could from anything that resembled the religion of the former regime, leading to the development of the new calender and the cult of the supreme being. Now, whether this rebellion against traditional Christianity was good or not is a matter of subjectivity. You may approve of it (I'm not saying you do) but personally, I think it was wrong and shows how morally depraved they were. I am not twisting the facts (at least not knowingly ;)) I'm just giving my view of them. You may feel free to disagree and argue.

[Stanislaw]

I think I would be safe in saying, that religion as a freely chosen and practiced belief system is neither harmful nor negative, but when extremism enters the picture, a situation that can result in a great deal of negativity is created. The same could be said of the choice of a non-religious life...

Ps. Bravo to Alexander III

[stlukesguild]

I think I would be safe in saying, that religion as a freely chosen and practiced belief system is neither harmful nor negative, but when extremism enters the picture, a situation that can result in a great deal of negativity is created. The same could be said of the choice of a non-religious life...

There will always be those who hate and are willing to employ violence and abuse upon others. They will use anything as a validation of their hatred and their actions: religion (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Shintu...), race, nationality, political beliefs, philosophy, sexuality, etc... We might just as well blame differences in race, language, nationality, etc... and attempt to do away with these as blame Christianity and the Church for all the evils that some Christians and some members of the church do.

[OrphanPip]

There will always be those who hate and are willing to employ violence and abuse upon others. They will use anything as a validation of their hatred and their actions: religion (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Shintu...), race, nationality, political beliefs, philosophy, sexuality, etc... We might just as well blame differences in race, language, nationality, etc... and attempt to do away with these as blame Christianity and the Church for all the evils that some Christians and some members of the church do.

That is so trite. There are existing religious doctrines and practices advocated by religious organizations that are reprehensible, they are not above criticism. Blaming everything on individuals is an easy cop out to avoid looking at how these institutions can certainly act oppressively. When the religious organization is complicit and actively supports individual's use of it as a reason to justify their abuses, how is the religious organization not responsible? Political beliefs and organizations that actively promote violence would certainly be blamed if their followers insisted on carrying out what their ideology advocated.

If a Sharia court in Saudi Arabia abuses the rights of women on the basis of religious doctrine, how can you say there is no fault in the doctrine?


You may approve of it (I'm not saying you do) but personally, I think it was wrong and shows how morally depraved they were.

No, I think the Church's clinging to political power and support of a regime that had no respect for concept of personal rights and individual dignity is far more reflective of the religious elite's moral depravity than any of the revolutionaries. Making sure that the religious elite no longer could be landholders and masters over large numbers of peasantry, and hold position of power in the political structure is in no way morally depraved. The violence that ensued in the suppression of the Catholic resistance is as much the fault of the Church participating in the post-revolution battles as it was that of the leaders of the Revolution.

[stlukesguild]

That is so trite.

No... the idea of passing the blame off from the guilty parties is trite. The concept that it is society's fault or Christianity's fault or whatever institution you care to insert's fault rather than the the individual... the criminal.

There are existing religious doctrines and practices advocated by religious organizations that are reprehensible, they are not above criticism.

Certainly. Of course I would differentiate between doctrine that that should only be open to discussion within the institution (ie. it seems presumptuous, for example, for non-Catholics to question central tenets of the Catholic Church such as the celibacy of the clergy), and doctrines which seriously effect those outside of the institution or seriously harm anyone. All of the individuals involved in the abuse of children, for example... including the higher clergy involved in the cover-up... should be held responsible.

Blaming everything on individuals is an easy cop out to avoid looking at how these institutions can certainly act oppressively.

What constitutes an oppressive use of power? What institutions with any real power do not exercise this power? Corporations? Educational institutions? ?Political parties? Unions? Governments? Chambers of Commerce? The question is how this power is wielded.

When the religious organization is complicit and actively supports individual's use of it as a reason to justify their abuses, how is the religious organization not responsible?

Again... all individuals within the institution are to be held responsible for any illegal actions, and as with any institution, if a pattern of illegal behavior can be proven then the institution as a whole may certainly be held responsible. One would have thought, for example, that having proven a pattern of discrimination at Wal-Mart, the corporation would have been held financially responsible. In a just world this would have resulted in a fine, not in the banning of Wal-Mart nor in the blanket statements suggesting that all Wal-Mart employees are sexist.

There is also the question of just how far back we go in holding any institution responsible. The attacks on Christianity frequently bring up the Inquisition, and the various witch hunts and pogroms. Are we equally to hold the United States responsible for the institution of slavery? Am I to shell out a portion of my earnings in reparations although my ancestors were living in Germany and Austria at the time? Is Spain to be held responsible for the millions of deaths (intentional and unintentional) that resulted from Columbus landing in the "New World?"

Political beliefs and organizations that actively promote violence would certainly be blamed if their followers insisted on carrying out what their ideology advocated.

Certainly. And I fully advocate prosecution of those churches or mosques that openly advocate violence or illegal actions. Personally, I would advocate stripping the tax-exempt status from any individual church that openly engages in directing its members as to how to vote. At the same time, the "separation of church and state" disallows discriminating against any religious institution for engaging in politics in a legal manner... in organizing protests... in supporting certain candidates of issues (albeit not financially).

If a Sharia court in Saudi Arabia abuses the rights of women on the basis of religious doctrine, how can you say there is no fault in the doctrine?

The problem that we cross in such a circumstance is that in Islamic nations, the Islamic clergy is commonly part of the government. In theory, we should insist that our nation only do business with those nations that share our values concerning basic human rights... but in reality, this has never been so... of any nation. Throughout the crusades the European nations continued to carry out business with the very nations they were at war with. We (the West... Canada and Europe... as well as the United States) continue to conduct business with China, in spite of their human rights record... with the nations of the Middle-East... etc...

[OrphanPip]

No... the idea of passing the blame off from the guilty parties is trite. The concept that it is society's fault or Christianity's fault or whatever institution you care to insert's fault rather than the the individual... the criminal.

Nonsense, if the institution facilitates the actions it is guilty. If the doctrine lends itself to the legitimization of oppressive behavior, then the doctrine is faulty and should be criticized. To act as if religion is somehow above criticism and fault is silly. There is a clear correlation between religious beliefs and say political positions that favour the limiting of civil rights for sexual minorities, how can we say it's the people and not the churches that actively advocate the issue. How is the Mormon church not responsible when it donated directly to the Prop 8 campaign in California. Religions are not abstract doctrines, they are organizations made of individuals, they are institutions, and institutions are clearly responsible when they promote certain behaviors.

There is no clear distinction between the individual and the institution in these cases.



What constitutes an oppressive use of power? What institutions with any real power do not exercise this power? Corporations? Educational institutions? ?Political parties? Unions? Governments? Chambers of Commerce? The question is how this power is wielded.

And would any of us say that a government or political party is somehow above criticism? Of course the question is partly how the power is wielded, and several current religious organizations use that power poorly. I resent the fact that the Catholic church is capable of collecting donations in my neighbourhood tax free in order to finance endeavors to promote abstinence in Africa and interfere with condom campaigns, a process that inevitably aggravates the HIV epidemic.

How is an organization that uses most of its income for its own self-maintenance and self-propagation charity. Why should we tolerate that? If they want to do charity, they can set up separate charitable organizations with clear goals and budgets.



Again... all individuals within the institution are to be held responsible for any illegal actions, and as with any institution, if a pattern of illegal behavior can be proven then the institution as a whole may certainly be held responsible. One would have thought, for example, that having proven a pattern of discrimination at Wal-Mart, the corporation would have been held financially responsible. In a just world this would have resulted in a fine, not in the banning of Wal-Mart nor in the blanket statements suggesting that all Wal-Mart employees are sexist.

That's a wonderful bunch of obfuscation, but it's entirely irrelevant. Individuals being individually responsible doesn't change the fact that the institution and its doctrines shares in the responsibility. Who are we to blame? The Pope? However, the Pope is indistinguishable from the official doctrine of his Church.



There is also the question of just how far back we go in holding any institution responsible. The attacks on Christianity frequently bring up the Inquisition, and the various witch hunts and pogroms. Are we equally to hold the United States responsible for the institution of slavery? Am I to shell out a portion of my earnings in reparations although my ancestors were living in Germany and Austria at the time? Is Spain to be held responsible for the millions of deaths (intentional and unintentional) that resulted from Columbus landing in the "New World?"

Who cares about the past, there's plenty in the present that is reprehensible. Without getting into injustices in Islamic countries and India. There is the anti-civil rights, and anti-scientific movement of American evangelicalism. The active resistance of AIDS programs in Central Africa by the Mormon and Catholic Church. The linking of aid with religious missions, thus exploiting the vulnerability of people for their own propagation. Anti-feminist attitudes in several conservative sects of Christianity and Judaism apart from Islam. The anti-vaccine and anti-medical behaviors of Jehovah Witnesses.

One doesn't have to look far to see religious institutions acting badly.



Certainly. And I fully advocate prosecution of those churches or mosques that openly advocate violence or illegal actions. Personally, I would advocate stripping the tax-exempt status from any individual church that openly engages in directing its members as to how to vote. At the same time, the "separation of church and state" disallows discriminating against any religious institution for engaging in politics in a legal manner... in organizing protests... in supporting certain candidates of issues (albeit not financially).

I haven't advocated the banning of churches. Merely the removal of them from public support and the public sphere. The secularization of public life is a necessity both to maintain religious freedoms and to insure that arbitrary superstitions aren't allowed to play active roles in determining the lives of others. I simply support the fact that there is nothing wrong in expressing contempt for religion and its trappings. Religion is not above criticism, and acting as if it should be in favour of blaming individuals overlooks the larger issues.



The problem that we cross in such a circumstance is that in Islamic nations, the Islamic clergy is commonly part of the government. In theory, we should insist that our nation only do business with those nations that share our values concerning basic human rights... but in reality, this has never been so... of any nation. Throughout the crusades the European nations continued to carry out business with the very nations they were at war with. We (the West... Canada and Europe... as well as the United States) continue to conduct business with China, in spite of their human rights record... with the nations of the Middle-East... etc...

I don't care if we do business with the Middle-East or not, I'm just making it clear that I think religion is superstition, and it is often dangerous superstition used to legitimize the oppression of others.

[Stanislaw]

I don't care if we do business with the Middle-East or not, I'm just making it clear that I think religion is superstition, and it is often dangerous superstition used to legitimize the oppression of others.

I agree mostly with what you stated, but to play devils advocate (heh heh) for a minute:

A little bit of oppression is not a horrible thing, the base for our laws does have its roots in the Hebrew commandments. The idea of control in day to day living is not strictly a religious view. Without the oppression of rules, anarchy would set in.

Limitations placed on personal freedoms is what keeps society together and strong, the problem occurs when the limitations are carried to far.
Personally, I feel that people should be allowed to believe in what ever they choose... as long as it does not impose upon the freedoms of others.

[stlukesguild]

Nonsense, if the institution facilitates the actions it is guilty. If the doctrine lends itself to the legitimization of oppressive behavior, then the doctrine is faulty and should be criticized. To act as if religion is somehow above criticism and fault is silly. There is a clear correlation between religious beliefs and say political positions that favour the limiting of civil rights for sexual minorities, how can we say it's the people and not the churches that actively advocate the issue. How is the Mormon church not responsible when it donated directly to the Prop 8 campaign in California. Religions are not abstract doctrines, they are organizations made of individuals, they are institutions, and institutions are clearly responsible when they promote certain behaviors.

There is no clear distinction between the individual and the institution in these cases.

I agree that an institution should be held accountable if it promotes a doctrine that is clearly illegal. If we presume that your example of doctrine that limits the rights of sexual minorities refers to GLBT rights, your example fails this requirement. Much as I may disagree with the position of most churches regarding GLBT rights, it would seem that the church, like any institution, is fully within it rights in supporting causes that it believes in and against those it doesn't. Ultimately, any church must operate by the same standards as any other institution. It is highly doubtful that the Mormon Church was the sole opponent financing Proposition 8. My guess is that insurance companies and corporations not wanting the added expense of insuring GLBT employees also bankrolled this issue.

And would any of us say that a government or political party is somehow above criticism?

And yet it was a banning of churches that was called for. There are many things that the Republican Party has done in the last few years that I disagree with... but I do not insist that the Party be disbanded because I am of a difference of opinion. If it can be proved that the party exhibits a pattern of promoting illegal activity however... that's another issue altogether.

I resent the fact that the Catholic church is capable of collecting donations in my neighbourhood tax free in order to finance endeavors to promote abstinence in Africa and interfere with condom campaigns, a process that inevitably aggravates the HIV epidemic.

And I resent the fact that I pay taxes to a federal government that is wasting enough money in two-months time in a pointless war in Afghanistan to pay for the salaries of all of the 100s of thousands of teachers laid off in the last few years. And I resent the fact that I pay taxes to a state government that has cut funding for public schools while increasing funding for private for-profit schools owned by contributors to the governors election. We can speak out against the actions of any institution that we believe is negatively impacting us. We have the right to take political action against them. But this is not the same as suggesting that the institution be banned or painting all members/employees of an institution with the same broad brush. Many individuals who think of themselves as Christians or Jews rarely, if ever attend church/temple let alone "religiously" follow the doctrines and rules set forth by clergy.

How is an organization that uses most of its income for its own self-maintenance and self-propagation charity. Why should we tolerate that? If they want to do charity, they can set up separate charitable organizations with clear goals and budgets.

Non-for-profit organizations operate under very specific guidelines. These are not limited to charities. I have worked with non-for-profit art's organizations where the largest part of the income was spent on paying employees (including management) and promoting art... often art that was challenging to community standards. While there is a separation of church and state this does not mean that the church does not need to follow the same legal guidelines as other non-for-profit institutions.

That's a wonderful bunch of obfuscation, but it's entirely irrelevant. Individuals being individually responsible doesn't change the fact that the institution and its doctrines shares in the responsibility. Who are we to blame? The Pope? However, the Pope is indistinguishable from the official doctrine of his Church.

Whose obfuscating? You are the one throwing out blanket statements about imagined "doctine" without the least specifics. Which specific illegal doctrine are we talking about that is being pushed by the Pope down through the whole of the church? Is there a chapter in Ezekiel that I missed about allowing the clergy to molest small boys? How does the Pope effect the rest of the Christian churches that far outnumber Catholicism?

Without getting into injustices in Islamic countries and India. There is the anti-civil rights, and anti-scientific movement of American evangelicalism. The active resistance of AIDS programs in Central Africa by the Mormon and Catholic Church. The linking of aid with religious missions, thus exploiting the vulnerability of people for their own propagation. Anti-feminist attitudes in several conservative sects of Christianity and Judaism apart from Islam. The anti-vaccine and anti-medical behaviors of Jehovah Witnesses.

One doesn't have to look far to see religious institutions acting badly.

Again... which of these specific actions is illegal? What seems to bother you is that an institution may legally support causes you disapprove of.

I haven't advocated the banning of churches. Merely the removal of them from public support and the public sphere.

What public support? Again, all religious institutions operate as non-for-profit organizations. As such, they must meet the same federal guidelines as other non-for-profit organizations. Personally, I agree that the involvement of various churches within the political sphere is problematic. I can't see a legitimate alternative. If we strip the church of its non-for-profit status then it is afforded the same legal right to openly engage in politics as any other institution... which could be far worse. At present, the Church must tip-toe around just how openly active it may be without losing the non-for-profit status. If we remove the rights of all religious institutions to participate within the political system however we are pretty much trashing some of the central beliefs of the nation concerning equality.

I don't care if we do business with the Middle-East or not, I'm just making it clear that I think religion is superstition, and it is often dangerous superstition used to legitimize the oppression of others.

Talk about hypocrisy.:eek: You "resent the fact that the Catholic church is capable of collecting donations in your neighbourhood tax free in order to finance endeavors to promote abstinence in Africa and interfere with condom campaigns, a process that inevitably aggravates the HIV epidemic"... but you have no problem with the fact that our governments continue avoid adequately funding alternative energy research in order to increase our energy independence and instead continue to cut major tax breaks to international oil corporations which bankroll the Middle-Eastern rulers who keep the majority of their populace in poverty which in turn fuels the hatred of the West, the growing strength of Islamic extremist and terrorist organizations.

I guess you pick and choose where your ethics lie... as do we all?:D

Personally, I am, if anything, an agnostic without any religious (let alone institutional) affiliation. I, however, resent the hypocrisy of a lot of the anti-Christian sentiment that shows up on the internet. All too often, the same persons who would bristle at at the thought of someone making a broad sweeping generalization concerning Blacks, Women, Gays, Lesbians, Indians, Jews, Albinos, Muslims, Chinese, Germans, English, etc... etc... have no problem with making such comments concerning Christians... or Americans.:hand:

[G L Wilson]

...the base for our laws does have its roots in the Hebrew commandments.

The base of our laws does not have its roots in the Hebrew commandments.

[BienvenuJDC]

Stluke, I appreciate your attempts for being unbiased...it is refreshing.

[BienvenuJDC]

The base of our laws does not have its roots in the Hebrew commandments.

The founding fathers had very strong Judeo-Christian influences, so I'm sorry, but your claim just isn't true. The Hebrew commandments DID influence our laws, as well as many Christian commandments. (and they still do)

[Stanislaw]

The base of our laws does not have its roots in the Hebrew commandments.

Please regard European history.

[Scheherazade]

Until we are all capable of showing respect to others and carry on debates without personalising them,

discussion threads on sensitive topics will be short-lived.

This thread is now closed.