View previous topic | View next topic

Organised religions and their Inconsistancies

Page 5 of 10
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next


organised religon: good or bad?
good
12%
 12%  [ 4 ]
bad
74%
 74%  [ 23 ]
indifferent
12%
 12%  [ 4 ]
nun
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 31

Woodsman
62612.  Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:32 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Personally anything which is clearly a product of its time is not something that I can invest a lot of faith or confidence in. That includes the American Constitution. If you're looking for a set of rules by which to live your life, they have to have the capacity of changing to deal with things that are a part of life now but which simply didn't exist before.


A Meerkin chiming in.

Despite its faults, being originally a product of its time, and the jingoistic prattling on by Meerkins about it, the US Constitution is a lot more fungible than most religions. It was written, and then soon amended with Amendments 1 through 10, the Bill of Rights, and over the years has had 17 more Constitutional Amendments, the last one adopted in 1992.

 
Woodsman
62613.  Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:45 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
What I would like to know and don't is what proportion of Americans actually take the "We Are The Religious Right And We Rule The World" stance which has a lot to do with their attitudes.


The Shrub's 'Base' is, by some accounts, composed of about 18 to 20% of the electorate. These are fundamentalist leaning, of which only about half are hardcore, but virulent.

The remaining 30 + % who put him in office the second time were the 'Sheep', whose synapses were wired to accept fear baiting by the neocons, who do know how to push the negative buttons. It is mostly voters from this segment that have started to split off from Shrub, leaving him with a residual approval of about 35% total.

So, if the Sheep had not been so cowed by events and hadn't joined the Base in large numbers, and if the Dems had put up a credible candidate, things would have been quite different.

 
Woodsman
62614.  Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:58 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Id say that there are a lot of parallels between 'patriotic' (people who shout "USA! USA! USA!" at every opportunity), and some forms of organised religion. Being part of "The Greatest Democracy On Earth" is their religion. i.e. the thoughtless dogmatism, and vitriol directed at those who wish to discuss issues rationally. And the unquestioning belief in whatever the higher power, in this case Fox News, says.


Depends on where one lives. We are in a 'Blue State', where essentially one doesn't hear much of this stuff. Now, Texas, on the other hand .....

 
Woodsman
62616.  Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:09 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
How worried should I be at the thought of Jeb Bush - the guy who unilaterally decided that Dubya won that first election - being the next president?


Actually, the US Supreme Court made that decision. The 2000 election contained, in the State of Florida, enough irregularities to make Belarus blush. Large numbers of people were disenfranchised, particularly of one political persuasion, and with the connivance of Shrub's brother. Because of this, it was a tainted election and the current occupant of the White House is there under a cloud, assisted by the decision of the Supremes.

 
Jenny
62617.  Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:35 pm Reply with quote

With or without Diana Ross?

 
Quaintly Ignorant
62618.  Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:55 pm Reply with quote

<laugh>
STOP! In the name of law,
Before you break my democracy.

Think it o-o-ver,
Think it o-o-ver.
Rory Gilmore wrote:
Do you suppose that if the
The thing I can't get my head around is why Buddhism goes on about the worthlessness of the material world then has giant giant gold statues in it's temples. Does anyone know?

I should imagine it is a symbol that Gold being so precious to the people of the world and that they value their spirituality so much that they can waste such vast quantities in this way as it really isn't that important. It isn't worth anything until someone pays for it, after all.

 
gerontius grumpus
62622.  Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:03 am Reply with quote

It seems ironic to me that the religious right, like the Bush brothers, claim to be so Christian and yet they are so keen on the death penalty.
Have they forgotten about the importance of forgiveness and "Thou shalt not kill" and all that stuff?

 
samivel
62654.  Thu Mar 30, 2006 4:48 am Reply with quote

Yes, they have. It seems to me that fundamentalist 'Christians' just twist Christianity to what they already think, rather than tailoring their opinions to the ideas of Christianity.

 
Tas
62664.  Thu Mar 30, 2006 5:05 am Reply with quote

Quote:
It seems ironic to me that the religious right, like the Bush brothers, claim to be so Christian and yet they are so keen on the death penalty.
Have they forgotten about the importance of forgiveness and "Thou shalt not kill" and all that stuff?


Aren't the looking at it from the "Eye For An Eye" perspective, though?

:-)

Tas

 
Gray
62721.  Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:02 am Reply with quote

I very much recommend Daniel C. Dennett's latest book Breaking The Spell in which he firstly says that we all need to have a calm discussion on exactly what kind of thing religion is, without getting all upset and offended and 'bomby'. And secondly he goes on to put forward a reasonably good idea of what he thinks, being somewhat of a philosopher.

He makes a critical distinction between 'Believers' and 'Believers in Belief'. The former are genuine believers in the religious doctrines, and aren't generally evangelistic about it. The latter recognise the power in belief, and claiming that they believe, but are far more likely to have adopted it for that reason alone, and not the formers'.

As an example, all the members of the American Congress are publicly avowed Christians. And not one would ever say otherwise, irrespective of how they feel: there's too much, politically speaking, at stake.

 
Davini994
62727.  Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:17 am Reply with quote

Woodsman wrote:
Quote:
Id say that there are a lot of parallels between 'patriotic' (people who shout "USA! USA! USA!" at every opportunity), and some forms of organised religion. Being part of "The Greatest Democracy On Earth" is their religion. i.e. the thoughtless dogmatism, and vitriol directed at those who wish to discuss issues rationally. And the unquestioning belief in whatever the higher power, in this case Fox News, says.


Depends on where one lives. We are in a 'Blue State', where essentially one doesn't hear much of this stuff. Now, Texas, on the other hand .....


Ok. I presume you mean the people in your communities... but what about the media channels though? Is there much thoughtful news presentation on TV, for example? And the papers?

Purple America: http://geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ervdb/JAVA/election2004/

 
suze
62746.  Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:57 am Reply with quote

Gray wrote:
As an example, all the members of the American Congress are publicly avowed Christians. And not one would ever say otherwise, irrespective of how they feel: there's too much, politically speaking, at stake.


Well I just looked through the current Senate, and there are seven Jewish senators, including Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), one of very, very few left wingers anywhere in American politics. All seven are Democrats. Inevitably, the two Utah senators are Mormons - whether or not they count as Christians I leave to others to decide, and as one would expect in Utah they are both Republicans.

There are other Jewish and Mormon Congressmen in the House of Representatives (there is a Mormon congressman from Oklahoma, and the delegate for American Samoa is also a Mormon), together with one possible "other". Doris Matsui (D-CA) declines to state her faith, and since she is of Japanese origin may possibly be a Buddhist.

But no, there are no Muslims or admitted atheists in Congress. The nearest approach would I guess be Barney Frank (D-MA), who is openly gay and while his family are Jewish there has been some suspicion that he may be an atheist. He's a bit of a joker, and if they had Have I Got News For You in the USA, Barney would be on every week!


Last edited by suze on Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:09 am; edited 1 time in total

 
Tas
62748.  Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:04 am Reply with quote

Perhaps they should do a transatlantic HIGNFY and have him on it?

:-)

Tas

 
Gray
62750.  Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:08 am Reply with quote

Nice sleuthing suze! I may, in fact, have misquoted Dennett (he mentioned the fact in a lecture I attended) - he may have said some other political grouping. House of Representatives? I known nothing about American political structure at all. British politics is quite boring enough thank you. :-)

Still, they all appear to be 'God-fearing', with the possible exception of the Barney who gets off for being a 'funny guy'...

 
Davini994
62766.  Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:45 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
Barney Frank (D-MA), who is openly gay... there has been some suspicion that he may be an atheist.

That's funny!

 

Page 5 of 10
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group