What's wrong with religion?

[koan]

I've steered, successfully or not, the attention of the thread to whether religion is much different than politics. Since it is being blamed for war and the separation of the two is such a big issue in society I think it should be examined whether they are not essentially the same thing.

The US most certainly has not separated religion from politics, as the Guardian link will show. Probably because they want the votes of the religious folk.

[OpenMind]

koan wrote: I've steered, successfully or not, the attention of the thread to whether religion is much different than politics. Since it is being blamed for war and the separation of the two is such a big issue in society I think it should be examined whether they are not essentially the same thing.



The US most certainly has not separated religion from politics, as the Guardian link will show. Probably because they want the votes of the religious folk.


Koan. As such, politics is not a belief more than a preference for a social structure. In the social sciences, each structure is just that, a basis for the organisation of a society. Therefore, it is very different to religion.

[koan]

OpenMind wrote: Koan. As such, politics is not a belief more than a preference for a social structure. In the social sciences, each structure is just that, a basis for the organisation of a society. Therefore, it is very different to religion.


Obviously they are different words with different definitions. What I'm saying is they have the same problems. The practice of each ends in the same results.

[OpenMind]

koan wrote: Obviously they are different words with different definitions. What I'm saying is they have the same problems. The practice of each ends in the same results.


Indeed, Koan. I can agree with that. For as long as there are people who want power or control over others, we will have this problem. Religion and politics are convenient vehicles for such ambitions. Notwithstanding, it is not the purpose of either religion or politics to ge used in this way.

Jesus, as the figurehead of Christianity, told his disciples that he was here to serve, not to rule. That is what anyone in office in either structure should be doing - serving the people.

[charles_r51]

war on terror? what war on terror? bush came into office. the towers were destroyed and the al queda were blamed.result: bush (having made sure the taliban had signed the gas deal with us corporations) no longer needed them so he waited iuntil bin laden had two months to get hidden before sending in a few special forces troops to not catch him, next, he uses his buddies in the cia to manipulate intelligence data, and gets the non-religious war with iraq under way,and then reduces the troop levels so they don't destroy the iraqi gfovernment totally, but disrupt it just enough to allow foreign resistance fighters into the wide open borders to justify our continued presence. lastly, he pushes through legislation (which no members of congress were allowed to read before it was passed into law) which resticted our civil rights to the point of nomn-existence. (read the patriot act, available on line). they arrest and convict one man of not having given them advance info about the plot he says he was part of (fifth amendment says he doest have to provide evidence against himself if it can be used against him, remeber?) for not giving evidence which could be used against him in court. in the mean time, he keeps troops in iraq at levels guaranteed not to be sufficient to win in iraq, and promises not to pull the the troop out as long as he's president. he still hasn't found bin laden, his father is in business with the bin laden family, the oil companies are making so much profit, and the president still hasn't figured out what he's doing wrong. this war was never about politics, but about money, and he's fighting a bunch of religious fanatics who couldn't care less about money, orp[olitics, but about their desire to impose their religion on the entire regipon, and then the rest of the world. and you think there's nothing wrong about religion and politics being together? bush wants d3emocracy in the region? horse manure, he wants his brand of of religion to be set forth on the region and his supporters on the far right can't even see it, and will never admit it either.:-4 :-4 :-4 :-4

[zinkyusa]

koan wrote: I've steered, successfully or not, the attention of the thread to whether religion is much different than politics. Since it is being blamed for war and the separation of the two is such a big issue in society I think it should be examined whether they are not essentially the same thing.

The US most certainly has not separated religion from politics, as the Guardian link will show. Probably because they want the votes of the religious folk.


True, I think the republican party has coopted Chrisitan Religous Fundamentalism as part of it's planck (at least unofficially). In my mind this is a dangerous mistake and caused me to leave the Republican party in 1994..but I digress.

As to the larger issue politics and religion share certain commonalities as they can both be used as motivation to accomplish certain goals. In doing so they can becomed intertwined. They are however fundamentally different in that politics is more related to governance and religion is more related to spiritualy. When they interwine to the extreme you wind up with theocracy:eek:

The US has most definetly separated religion from governance in the articles of the US Constitution, opinions of Alabama judges to the contrary.

[charles_r51]

why feel bad about anyones ideas. religion, politics,science, all have a piurpose. whether one knows what it may be is irrelevant, its the effect that matters. science explains, based on physical laws, politics explains based on relationships between differing people, relgion explains why people are still so ignorant of what the whole pupose of living is. it is nothing but a learning process that man goes through, nothing more. when religion gets mixed into political problems, everyone gets up i arms, not because of the problem, but because of belief in something that is not tangible, and hence has nothing to support it. except power. and there is the problem. political power will ebb and flow, until some semblance of order comes out pf the chaos. science is able to only explain what how and why some things do and don't occur in the physical world. but religion, ahh. what chaos has rendered, faith has confused even more. ther is no explanation for anything, only belief. there is no give and take, only belief. and ther is no beliief, because it is so messed up in its own belief, it is blinded by its faith. noi one can say i believe and not add except for this or that, or some other excuse to change the other's belief. religion isn't a give and take, nor is it an exact explanation. it is a chaotic conflagration of differences not able to agree on anything except its own self-importance. no religion can or will admit to being wrong about any matter of faith. and since it cannot admit it , it will never admit another may be even remotely right. unless such can occur, it will never allow a peaceful existance when another religion exists which doesn't have the same belief. inflict religion into politics, or allow them to be part and parcel to each other and the chaos which religion is will always be the ruling factor, and never a solution for anything.:-4 :-4 :-4 :-4

[koan]

Leaders of religion and politics both propose to be wiser than the average person. While some religious leaders really do care about the well being of their flock I highly doubt that politicians care.

I think religious leaders are more compassionate. And they make fewer rules. lol

[charles_r51]

actually, the US didn't get it right. had they done so, no religion would have ever been in this country to begin with. but at least they knew the danger religion could cause and chosae to prevent it from being able to do so. neither religion, nor politics can solve problems, but aknowledging the existance of a problem is a long way away from the chaos of not knowing. if you ever attended a political meeting, such as city or county government meeting. you would see hoiw politis looks for a solution which all can accept, though not all will like or be in agreement with. but it is a solution, and not a justification. religion however, demands acceptance and creates a binding condition on everyone, regardless of whether it wads correct. it demands acceptance and enforces it as justification for itself being in existance. it forces acceptance on people, regardless on whether it should, simply because it can. ther is no give and take, nor room to maneuver so a common solution can be offerred. it condemns anyone who disagrees, and leaves no other way for discussion. it creates and maintains chaotic conditions with other groups of some other religion without regard to whether it is justified or not. religion per say, isn't bad, it's just not what it could have been, a simple to follow moral direction. insteadf it a basis for disruption and will never solve a single prob;em, burt will always lead to destructive actions above and beyond the call of ignorance.:-4 :-4 :-4 :-4

[charles_r51]

koan

whether or not you steer in a direction, it sometimes goes awry. another poster stated that the repulicans took the religious right into itself. actually it was the other way around the religious right took the republican party to heart and sought to hold it hostage to itself for political gain. maybe the next election will show how the middle of america, the real pwer of the people, will fdorce the religious right out of the political arena and back into their churches where they belong. if they don't, then this country will suffer even more, but it will be for sectarian reasons, and will be directed by well-meaning, but just as ignorant of what the country needs, fanatics as currently exists in so many other nations which have powerful religious political forces. :-4 :-4 :-4 :-4

[charles_r51]

zinky

i don't envy your opinion of the religious right and the republican party, but read my post to zoan. it explains more than i want to re-write.:-4 :-4 :-4 :-4

[charles_r51]

koan the religious obviously care about their flock. unfortunately they also condemn many who are notin their flock. ther is their problem, their own hypocrisy when they say one thing but turn around and do it themselves. it becomes a great embarrassment when they get caught.

politicians care about their flocks to, the very ones who contribute the most to their next campaign. but at least they try to show some sensitivity to the voter. and yes they get caiught doing things they shouldn't, but they often go to prison for it, too.

how manyof the leaders in the christian world go to prison when they get caught? not many, and if your catholic, hardly anything is done but get you sent to another parish to do the same there. many religions protect the leaders, but none will protect a politician, when the really serious matters are discovered.:-4 :-4 :-4 :-4

[Ted]

Good Lord go to bed for overnight and look what happens on the forum. LOL There certainly is a lot to read and digest.

I am reading a lot of lack of understanding of the whole concept of religion.

There is a continuum from extreme left to extreme right within the religious fold as well as within the plitical fold. The problems that face us concerning religion are the extremists. As one moves towards the centre things change.

I would classify myself as center of left. My experiences are thus: no desire to control what I do and think; an openness to change and new ideas; a recognition of the value of science and politics; a realization that the sacred scriptures of allfaiths must be taken metaphorically; an absolute sense of community with no backbiting etc.; a very helpful and dynamic institution; an exciting place to be; as highly academic as one wishes to be; leaders and theologians who are highly trained and extremely intelligent; an acceptance of other faiths as valid in their own right and culture; a great help to society within the limits of its capabilities. I could go on but these are things wbout which I am hearing contrary comments.

Now to address politics. I would not want to see or live in a theocracy. It would be totally devastating and enslaving. However, if we look at Jesus we find a very political person. He was opposed to and acted upon his opposition to the dominations systems of his day, including the Roman empire and the Jewish collaborators in the temple, who followed directions from Rome. He propose a kingdom, not of politics, but of distributive justice, egalitarianism, mutual respect and love for all people in all nations. Thus his message was both political and spiritual.

The centre left churches are today moving towards which I call myself and Christian pluralist. I am a devout Christian but I respect all of the Great faiths and the spirituality that is behind all faiths. That spirituality is basically the same and is reflected in the "Kingdom of God" movement that Jesus presented.

Are there problems within and between churches? Absolutely, but those who are not towards the end of the continuum are working together to agree to disagree on many points and thus to get along even with their paradoxes. As a faithful people we recognize there are, and live with paradox. It exists all over the world. It is part of life and the living process.

The only thing I ask of folks is to think and study and discuss before they comment upon things and in those comments show a complete lack of understanding. On one of these threads I posted a poem called "Love the Questions Themselves" and it is worth considering. Do I want all people to think and believe as I do? Heaven forbid. Let us all work to make this world a better place. Lets make a difference regardless of our personal differences.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

LOVE THE QUESTIONS THEMSELVES :

"

Be patient towards all

that is unsolved in your heart

and try to love the questions themselves

like locked rooms

and like books that are written in a very foreign

tongue.

Do not now seek the answers,



which cannot be given you

because you would not be able to, live them.

And the point is, to live everything.

Live the questions now.

Perhaps you will then gradually,

without noticing . it,

live along some distant day into the answer[s]."



Letter Four, from Worpswede, near Bremen,

July 16th, 1903.

Rainer Maria Rilke [1875-1`926], Letters to a



I obtained this from one of the world's pre-eminant theologians Dr. John Dominic Crossan, a few weeks ago while studying at the Vancouver School of Theology. I don't think one could be more open than that. Control? Inter faith animosity? Ignorance of science? Unhelpful? War mongering? Hatred?

Shalom

Ted:-6

[koan]

I think religious leaders die in horrible ways sometimes. lol.

A thought occured to me that may lead somewhere interesting. What if we separated politics from religion. What would that encompass? To just say they shouldn't be the elected leader is not sufficient. What are all the political aspects of religion and can they be taken out without the religion falling apart?

[Ted]

koan:-6

It seems to me that the involvement of religion in politics ought to be very tempered and directed at injustice and domination. Beyond that as we live in a multicultural country we must be certain not to impose regulations that may upset one group just to make another group happy

Justice in the Bible refers to distributive justice and not retributive justice..

I see the fight of Sharia law as a justice issue and it is good that it was disallowed.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[koan]

Isn't the belief that those outside of a religion are inferior similar to patriotism?

[koan]

If the existence of radicals in a religion mean that the whole thing should go...why is there still politics after Ross Perot?

[Ted]

koan:-6

Are those outside religion inferior? I am certain that as we get to the top orconservative end of the scale that such is the belief. From centre to left all folks are seen as children of God even the atheists. LOL. The aim is to accept all for what and who they are regardless of belief system or lack thereof.

As for the second question; do we throw out all of nuclear experimantation because some have created a bomb? My personal feelings about nuclear power aside. Do we dismiss all doctors because of Josheph Mengele? Unfortunately there will always be those who abuse situations.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[koan]

Ted wrote: koan:-6

Are those outside religion inferior? I am certain that as we get to the top orconservative end of the scale that such is the belief. From centre to left all folks are seen as children of God even the atheists. LOL. The aim is to accept all for what and who they are regardless of belief system or lack thereof.

As for the second question; do we throw out all of nuclear experimantation because some have created a bomb? My personal feelings about nuclear power aside. Do we dismiss all doctors because of Josheph Mengele? Unfortunately there will always be those who abuse situations.

Shalom

Ted:-6


some very fine examples, Ted. I was having a moment when I threw out Mr. Perot. :yh_giggle

[Ted]

koan:-6

My quandry is do I call conservatism at the top or bottom of the scale. My personal feeling is I should refer to it as being at the bottom of the scale.LOL

I guess a lateral description would be the most fair. LOL

Shalom

Ted.:-6

[Adam Zapple]

I am certain that as we get to the top orconservative end of the scale that such is the belief. From centre to left all folks are seen as children of God even the atheists.


Oh, I don't think the first sentence is true. And I think the second sentence applies to religious conservatives as well.

[Ted]

Adam:-6

I have no desire to get into an argument over this issue. I was raised in a staunch fundamentalist/literalist church and that was my experience. I have also seen it in other churches. We have one here on the island that will have nothing whatsoever to do with any of the other churches including the "world day of prayer". I know of a couple who were of a different denomination but as their denom. did not have a church on the idland they attended this very fundamentalist church. When there own denom. began a church they went to it. Their "friends" at the fundamentalist church would have nothing to do with them including speaking to them.

Then I see the likes of Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson or good old Jerry Falwell. I have my own personal feelings about them but will say no more.

Been there. Done that.

That was my experience and obviously continues to be. They think they are the only ones with the red phone hot line upstairs.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

Diuretic:-6

Agreed.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[charles_r51]

the problem as stated is this- when religion becomes the political, nothing good comes. notthat religion is bad, nor that politics is. only when they come together, joined at the hip so to speak, chaos rules. without politics, no resolution for different views can be found. when religion is in the forefront, only approved views are permitted. but when religionbecomes politically motivated, or politics becomes religiously motivated, nothing can be resolved without other groups being partially, and sometimes totally at different ends of the spectrum. hence, nothing ever is resolved. it will always be strife-driven in gaining an advantage, getting more influence, etc.such conditions are nothing less than chaotic and cannot be resolved. for a good point of reference, look at the politics and religious quandry that europe was in for over 1000 years. kings were made by the church, cardinals were made by how much their families contributed to the church coffers,the people were buying "relics" of no value whatever, the pope was ordering wars, the gentry were paying for both church and state, being kicked out of the church because of a difference of opinion with the parish priest. people were tortured, burned alive, burned after they died, and fear of everything and nothing was permitted unless the churchgave its okay, or a king defied the church and went to war- for god and country, of course- and almost nobody alive knew anything except what they were told. and that was usually wrong anyway. many may not like my view, but where is it written my view is wrong, and lacks the facts of reality? any good history book will prove it, even though many won't likeit.facts are facts, and i didn't make them up. politicians make up facts to an end, religions make up facts, based on faith, i have only history, but those facts can't be changed. excuses are not an option, and that is what politics and religion provide. excuses. but at least politics is in the real world, religion is in a made-up one.

:-4 :-4 :-4 :-4

some may not like the truth, but it shall make you free- if you let it.

[charles_r51]

ted and diuretic

don't make fun of my heroes. they just tryin to make a buck. millions actually, but who's counting?:-4 :-4 :wah: :guitarist

[Ted]

Charles:-6

One historian, acatually more than one, have told me that even history as written is usually the interpretation of the writer in many cases. There are facts but the writers then interpret them in their work. History is far from an exact science.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[charles_r51]

ted

irespect you for the beliefs you hold to. but having been involved in both religionon one end, and holding elected office on the other, and after getting an education which covered a very broad spectrum of political, religious, scientific, and philosophic ideas, i have seen much, experienced both the good and bad of each, and found one commonalituy among them all. life isn't worth squat, unless you're an indian on the reservation sitting in front of a small fire and cooking a rabbit for dinner. or fishing. i prefer the latter. :-5 :-5

[charles_r51]

ted

history is interpreted by an author, but there are toomany authors thet agree on too many facts to be far off the mark.:p :-4 :-4

[Ted]

Charles:-6

I don't think I would like rabbit either. As for fish, it better be halibut.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[charles_r51]

lulu

aren't talking to us?:-4 :-4

[charles_r51]

:-5 ted

bass is tastier, but cat is best for frying.:-4 :-4

[Ted]

Charles:-6

On the coast here fresh halibut is nearby, very nearby.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[charles_r51]

no coast close here. just lakes and rivers. do halibut survive in lakes and rivers? only ones i see come from a take out fish joint, and i think it's reallky some kind of junk fish. there are sea bass, and maybe sea cat but i haven't tried either. i've caught the bass out on the boat at the coast but it's six hour drive, and the boat is chartered and has hundreds of people who do nothing but tangle up with each other, maybe catch a shark or two, and never catch anything edible by man. at least not something that won't bite back. gotta go, dinner's waiting. i'll be back, maybe tonight or tommorrow for sure.:-3 :-3 :-4 :-4

[Lulu2]

" lulu

aren't talking to us? "



++++++++++ Frankly, boys, I don't find much of interest in this thread any more. The topic...what's wrong with religion...has been answered well in the last couple of pages. JMHO.

[charles_r51]

well, how about we change it, or find something better, like say people we would not like to meet? :-2 :-2

[Ted]

Charles:-6

Halibut are a ground fish somewhat like sole. It is a prized fish with excellent flavour. It is not a junk fish for sure. I saw one caught at 162 pounds. I've heard of them being over 800 pounds. Even along the coast they are a very expensive fish.

I also like fresh caugh cod; in the frying pan or bbq within a few hrs of being caught. had that in Newfoundland a few times.

The other big deal out here is salmon expecially sockeye. They seem to be endangered but they are trying to manage that and in some areas they are making a good comeback. Some fisherman have been unable to catch them for a few years due to a ban.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[koan]

This thread is like the fish that got away.

*koan shakes her head in wonderment

[Lulu2]

Time to cut bait....it's been deliberately scuttled. (sorry...couldn't resist.) That's why I raised anchor.

[Lulu2]

That is one of my favorites of George's diatribes! In case you haven't seen it, look here: http://www.valleyskeptic.com/george.htm

[Ted]

Geordie is entitled to his opinion and it is just that an opinion.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[zinkyusa]

There's something fishy about this thread..

[Adam Zapple]

Would everyone stop carping?

[koan]

Yes, Lulu, George has a point. The Ice Capades are a sure sign of something gone wrong.

Arnold wrote: I do get a little annoyed at those insisting that atheism is a religion
They're trying to annoy you...don't let them win!

[Ted]

koan:-6

I think the fishy part is the halibut or is it the bass?

Shalom

Ted:-6

[koan]

I don't want to carp on about it.

[Lulu2]

I'm FINished with it.