Speaking of which, omission is a form of control.Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
Speaking of which, omission is a form of control.
Por una cabeza
Si ella me olvida
Qué importa perderme
Mil veces la vida
Para qué vivir
(1) I broke a personal rule here on this thread, never to debate politics or religion. I wound up to my despair doing both. The reason that drew me in was that I saw a gross flaw in Unnamable's logic( ie, belief in absudites lead to atrocities). I will complete my points here and never discuss this again.
(2) First I would never poke my nose in some other countires politics or traditions. I would never ciriticize how other nations resolve their conflicts, especially between religion and government. I don't think it's appropriate. There are nations in Europe that still bow down to Kings and still have state sponsered religion. With Europe's history of religious strife, I don't think anyone there ought to be lecturing the United States.
(3) I said there was a line that evolves over where religion and government meet. We are a democracy, the first and oldest deomcracy on the face of this earth. 90% or thereabouts in America believe in some form higher diety. That line, drawn where it is, reflects that democracy. Some day we may be an atheistic nation. Then that line will reflect it so. People from all over the world still come to the United States for religious freedom. My wife is Jewish. Her family was persecuted in Europe. They are the proudest Americans I know, and they worship this land. Never do they feel, despite the fact that they are a very small minorty, do they feel that they are being slighted.
(4)In my observations of congressional daily prayer invocations, I have seen rabbis, protestant ministers, Catholic Priests, Greek Orthodox priests, muslim Imams, and perhaps sikhs (although I'm not sure I can tell). I don't see why there would be a reason for the other religions not to participate. We are a respectful and pluralistic society.And does this lack of denominationality mean that muslims, hindus, sikhs, buddhists, jains, pagans, followers of native American beliefs, atheists and anyone else that isn't mainstream christian gets fairly represented
(5) The non-denominational prayers that I have heard and actually been in the audience for go something like this: Let us pray in the traditions that you have been brought up in and believe; almighty God (or I've even heard Universal Creator) we thank you for the blessings you have bestowed upon us and pray for your wisdom in guidence in the decsions that lay before us.
(6) I don't feel I have to rationalize my country's traditions to any outsider. There are more immagrants trying to come to our country than we can accomodate. My parents and I (as a three year old) were immigrants to my country. This country has been very good to me. I am proud of it beyond anyone's comprehension. If you don't like it, then don't live here. We won't mind.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
It was HIS fault!!!
After such a foul slur on my powers of reasoning, I will make no such promise.Voltaire’s comment is no more intended as a piece of strict logic than is any other aphorism. Virgil, given your current attack of apoplectic nationalism, you might like this:
“No people can be great who have ceased to be virtuous.”
Dr. Johnson An Introduction to the Political State of Great Britain.
He was referring here to the behaviour of British colonists in America. If we examine this logically, it is flawed, perhaps even grossly flawed. What does he mean by ‘great’? What does he mean by ‘virtuous’? Is Johnson stating that there is a direct and logical correlation between greatness and virtue? There is no universal law that insists this must be so; “it just doesn't follow” to quote Virgil. In which case, does the great Dr. Johnson also require rewriting? This kind of deconstruction is fine by me but if you attack it on the point of pure logic, then you should be consistent and attack every statement of its nature.
I believe that Voltaire was pointing out that the gullibility of the many enables the evil of the few to thrive and set the agenda for barbarism.
A lot of the ideas here are worth considering in the light of Stanley Milgram’s Experiment:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=15073
“In order that all men may be taught to speak truth, it is necessary that all likewise should learn to hear it.”
Dr. Johnson ( or The Great Flawed Logician as he was known in his vaudeville days)
Blimey. Where does it come from? What is it in response to? Mysteries, mysteries.
The sense of America's absolute, unimpeachable rightness in the world, held by many Americans, seems linked to many of the atrocities it has committed around the world in the name of its national interest, which is often elided as if there's no contradiction at all, with the idea of spreading democracy.
The idea that any person, state or institution is above criticism is undemocratic, so it's a shame America keeps insisting on its absolute rightness on the grounds that it is democratic. You might even say, absurd.
This idea that America is the world's first democracy is debatable at best. The word is, after all, a coinage of the ancient Greeks. In 1900, the only country in the world that had universal suffrage was New Zealand.
Europe, at various points, has had problems with religious conflict, so all the citizens of its present day secular democracies are disqualified from criticizing America? Did you say you'd taken a course on logic, Virgil?
Perhaps you were simply trying to give us an object lesson in absurdity.
Meanwhile, in another part of the forum, I think I must be the reason you accuse Unnamable of defending racism in literature. As so often, this point was dealt with fairly exhaustively at the time. Whether you agree with the general conclusion (the text was not racist) or not (you obviously don't), it's pretty disingenuous of you to bring it up as if your view was accepted as fact.
Unnamable, since we're allowed to talk about the Nazis (hooray!), there's a passage from Adorno I like where he says that Nazi slogans like 'Blut und Bloden' (Blood and Soil) were widely seen as ridiculous even at the time by the German population. Adorno's view is that the Nazis used absurdity as an assertion of power - effectively saying, they didn't even have to try to make sense.
The creationism debate you begin with relates closely to that statement some Bu****e made recently about 'the reality based community' (seen as a bad thing). My memory of this is not good, but wasn't the condemnation of those of us naive enough to believe in empirical evidence being used to justify the Iraq war? The step from belief in the absurd to body counts does seem short. It seems to become something the would-be perpetrators can use to facilitate their cause, however cynically.
To go back to the Nazis, there's obviously a great deal of mysticism and occultism surrounding their rise and their objectives. The main point, as I see it, is that opening the door to any of this is to begin to shut down the kind of critical thinking, logic and empiricism that is needed in order to prevent atrocity.
I've read on with this debate, and I find some fundamental facts interesting.
There has been many claims as to the origins of the problems of mankind, problems which stem back to the earliest point of human history.
Humanity has been commiting atrocitties since the first murder and has been continuing down the line ever since.
We must not forget that such things as genocide, political murder, masscres, have all been part of the human make-up since its initial start in the universe.
Many of the causes of these problems would seem to be religious ferver caused by fanatical groups within a religion.
We must then remember that these religous fanatics only stand for a part of that religous makeup, and it would be wrong, and essentially ignorant for us to "Paint Everyone" with the same brush, as it were.
What often happens is that evil minded people, often doing as they do, see a religion as a weapon, or a way to increase their power and thus use it to their own ends.
Hence the reason that Christian history is marred with political scandal, murder, and outright attrocities like the spanish inquisition. And, is also the reason that the Moslems in recent times have marred their national image by being driven by religious fanaticism to declare Jihads, and use acts of terror against people.
So then all cause for religious strife would originate from leaders who are otherwise ignorant or use the church/mosque/temple/offices as a weapon against those hatred that they themselves foster then drive the masses to follow.
It is then essentially those fanatics in any system, whether it be Communism, Socialism, Theism, or Universalism, that are the cause of religious strife in the world, and thus the truly dangerous element of religion. Therefore it is up to those in the majority to will themselves against the much louder minority.
"Anything, will have people who use it properly, and those who abuse it."
The Crusades, or "taking up the cross" happened for them most part because the papist system believed that the Holy land should lie in the hands of Christians, and was a direct result of the previous wars that had enveloped Byzantium, and major parts of Spain and Sicily. It was a way for those religious leaders to make up for the Christian territory that had been lost, and also a chance for Europe to be united under a common enemy.
Better to have them fighting the Saracen and Moors than other fellow Christians, and at the same time they could increase their land holdings and power. This in turn served the Church two major purposes, since they were doing what they thought was a service to God, and at the same time keeping peace in the Christian land, and was thus both political and religous.
As for the origin of world problems? I know the answer, but I will leave that for you all to decide.
Of course this is totally off course of the original subjectOh well, maybe someone will start a Nazi religous forum
Last edited by Theshizznigg; 02-06-2006 at 12:40 PM.
The topic of discussion in this thread is 'Does it matter if people believe in Creationism?' Please avoid turning it into country/people bashing session and, as always, no current politics!
Thank you!
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
I believe in creationism, I don't believe in the use of faith, or religion as a weapon. Save that for the politicians.
Patriotism is not a great deal more than an idealistic dream which often has little bearing on reality. You don't own your country it owns you, and you are completely free to do all that it commands, for democracy is merely a dictatorship by the majority, people cannot govern others until they are capable of governing themselves (Hegelian Philosophy on the state I believe)
But to the topic
Christianity has remained the same since the dawn of time and has never changed. Powerful words, but is nonetheless true, why? Because truth remains the same, it is the understanding of truth which alters.
There is a great deal of evidence to support Christianity and you you owe it to yourself to at least examine the evidence that stands to say that this is a matter of life and death and determine for yourself whether it is or not, if you look at it from the Adventist(now salvation is not restricted to a particular church but the best knowledge regarding it seems to be) perspective, which is my perspective, accompanied with an objective outlook you will become a Christian. Prove me wrong, I dare you, it will simply be heaven's gain if you try, for you will come to find you have eternal life if you but reach for it.
Last edited by Christian; 02-08-2006 at 03:48 PM.
There's a great thread for this kind of stuff, Christian. Perhaps you've dropped in already. It's just called Evolution vs. Creation. The purpose of this thread you've just posted in is not to argue about whether creationism and Christianity are true or not. Still, just one point I can't let go by: Christianity has not existed since the dawn of time. It's commonly acknowledged among Christians and non-Christians to have existed for about 2,000 years.
Quite correct. If you don't mind a Bible quote, BLP, I think it's in Acts, "They were first called 'Christians' at Antioch", a city I'm not even sure exists in modern times, certainly not the same as then.
Some of us laugh
Some of us cry
Some of us smoke
Some of us lie
But it's all just the way
that we cope with our lives...
Christ the Son of God before the world was, is and ever will be the same both in intention and character, this is the point.
Last edited by Christian; 02-09-2006 at 08:45 AM.
That might be your point Christian but I asked the question because I don’t believe and think some beliefs are absurd. Creationism does strike me as one such belief but there are plenty of others. The one thing I have to distinguish me from an organism that acts purely on instinct is my rational faculty. It enables me to consider the meaning, purpose and value of my existence. I choose to do so without recourse to any supernatural being.
I believe that not only are some beliefs absurd, they also help prevent any real improvement in the lot of mankind by offering solutions that divert us from the real issues. If we believe Moses the Raven’s promise of ‘sugarcandy mountain’, then we are less likely to address the real causes of suffering, as well as less likely to embark on a course that offers hope of genuine improvement.
I think a lot of the fake respect that political correctness insists we accord to all beliefs has enabled nonsense to make dangerous inroads. The moral cowardice of those who are too intimidated by the threat of being labelled racist/sexist/narrow-minded to say what they believe is already having a destructive impact on independent thought. If you say anything about race other than that racism is evil, you are immediately suspect.
Most frightening to me is the fact that absurd beliefs are not only respected but also considered as deserving equal rights with all others. The idea of teaching creationism as a possible explanation is even more frightening.
What would people think if I started teaching astrology as a viable explanation for human existence? Some people believe in it just as strongly as others believe in God. To pretend that it’s anything more than nonsense gives it legitimacy it doesn’t deserve. If, having ‘found’ astrology people cease in their search for answers, the chances of us all finding them are diminished and the bigger and more popular the absurdity, the less likely is our capacity to avoid disaster.
It's a tough one, Unnamable. The whole thread is premised on something a lot of people just aren't going to buy into.
Have you come across Frances Wheen's book 'How Mumbo Jumbo conquered the world'? It's a bit of a mess in a way and he lumps post structuralism with a lot of more legitimate beefs, but overall it paints an interesting if frightening picture of the pervasive acceptance of nonsense, from Hilary Clinton's astrologer to half baked management theory and 'blue sky thinking' under Thatcher.
I recall a political comic I once saw that sums my position up rather nicely, I think.
Por una cabeza
Si ella me olvida
Qué importa perderme
Mil veces la vida
Para qué vivir
HAL:
for wisdom cries out in the
streets, and no man regards it.
King Henry IV Part 1 Act 1. Scene II
I intended “to vex the world rather than divert it.”
Don't know the Frances Wheen book. If I see it, I'll give it a go.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
