Recent Posts
I've been a lurker here for a while, but not chipped in, since I don't feel I have the experience to add much that's not already being said.
Having said that, the following gave me pause...
Lots of groups and individuals have attempted to get around this "freedom of religion" issue by declaring that their belief systems are "not a religion". IMO, this is pure bunk and misdirection. Just because one man's belief system involves a god and another's involves none doesn't make either belief system any less a religion - both involve a system of metaphysical beliefs.This puzzled me, as in my experience, I don't see many people denying that their belief is a valid religion.
I do see a lot of (IMHO, cynical) people attempting to 'get around the freedom of religion' issue, by promoting their beliefs as a religion, in order to gain the credibility and potential (assumed) advantages of such a status. Even people who identify themselves as atheists, secular humanists, pagans, and now Jedi <rolls eyes> have been known to get in on this trend.
I haven't time for a longer post, as I'm at work, and I'm aware that I'm writing from the (more secular) EU, but is my experience really so at odds with your own? Or did you type what you intended?
Actually, I would say that BOTH are correct. The confusion, I think, is due to the legal definition of religion as opposed to the sociological/philosophical definition. Legally, virtually any group can declare itself a religion and gain certain advantages. Similarly, any individual or group promoting a particular belief system can declare itself NOT a religion to gain other advantages.
bubbagump, I think that I disagree with you.
I accept the freedom of religion and its importance but I don't agree that it should be publicly displayed. For me all these religions are all about creating labels and segmenting the masses. That is why certain religions are more powerful than others. I don't claim to be an expert in the field but all religions seem to strive for the same goal and are based on the same tenents.
For me the differences between an orthodox and a catholic christian are almost insignificant. I also observe this relationship when I try to compare Christianity with Islam or Judaism. In the core those beliefs speak about the same god and have same philosophy.
That phrase - "for me" - is the kicker here. There are, in fact, very significant differences between religions that have very significant implications for societies collectively and individuals particularly. And no, these religions to NOT speak about the same god, though your personal belief system may consider them so.
The biggest problem for me is discrimination. Because for good or bad there are people that can be easily manipulated and quite fanatic in their beliefs. This is why I have problems with publicly demostrating the religion that people believe.
I too have a problem with discrimination. But there's a difficulty here when one attempts to draw the line. For example, if a Hare Krishnan wears an orange robe and sports a shaved head that's a public demonstration of his religion. If a Wiccan wears a pentagram it's a public display of religious belief. If a Catholic sits in a bar and talks about his Catholic faith with your buddies that's a public display of religion. If I advocate for tougher penalties for shoplifters it's a public expression of my beliefs. Should all religious speech, symbols, etc, be banned from public life? No, of course not - it's not even possible, much less practical.
The implications of restricting public exhibition of one's religion - any religion - terrifies me. Shall we declare to fundamentalist Muslim women that they can't wear their burkhas in public? Shall we say that no police officer can believe in "Thou shalt not steal"? Shall we begin incarcerating Wiccans for wearing pentagrams? How about if we arrest Secular Humanists for protesting in favor of abortion? Or maybe we should begin shooting Christians who want to gather on the courthouse steps to pray for their country?
The answer is not to restrict religious practice at all, provided that it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. The answer is in learning to tolerate each other. Do local Christians like to pray at football games? Then tolerate them - but don't pray with them. Does your Buddhist friend have a shaved head and meditate regularly? Then don't make fun of him. Does your Wiccan friend dress all in black and dance naked in the forest? It's none of your business, and no one's telling you you have to participate. Are you an atheist who doesn't want to participate in any religious activity at all? Then feel free - but don't tell me how to live my life, publicly or otherwise. You tolerate me, and I'll tolerate you.
And then maybe - just maybe - we'll be able to discuss differing religions, beliefs, and philosophies without getting mad at each other and without conflict. Ya never know - we might even learn something from each other.
Moff Rimmer, since you feel the need to keep bashing me even after I had left, I feel justified in getting back into this discussion.
It's inspiring that you seem to share my view of the bible as a historic document and not any sort of divine truth. Because, you know, if it were divine truth, it would be saying that we SHOULD be selling our daughters, even today. There are good numbers of other examples, such as God forcing Abraham to be ready to sacrifice his only son and so on.
If it's not divine truth, why should we follow the rules in it that are blatantly monstrous or stupid today? Why should anyone refer to things in the bible for legal, moral or ethical guidance, when so much of it is downright macabre today (genocide, group rape followed by dismemberment, and so on)?
Bubbagump, I have a problem with some things you have said that don't fit together very well.
Are you an atheist who doesn't want to participate in any religious activity at all? Then feel free - but don't tell me how to live my life, publicly or otherwise. You tolerate me, and I'll tolerate you.
It would seem to me that the reason so many atheists are upset with the rest of the world is that they don't want ANYONE telling them they have to behave. In other words, they seem to wish that there were no civilization at all and that they didn't have to treat the people around them with respect. If you want to act like a savage, move into the jungle.
How do these two statements fit together? Was the second one a good example of your own "tolerance", and is this what we can expect to learn from you?
... group rape followed by dismemberment, and so on...
And the Bible shows this as a good thing?
EDIT: Once again you are taking things from the Bible, entirely out of place and trying to put "morality" or "rules" to it. The account you are referring to is found at the end of the book of Judges. For the record there are a lot of really strange stories found there. Some more disturbing than others. In that story a particularly heinous act is done by one of the 12 tribes of Israel. As a result the entire nation went to war over the death of this one woman and many thousands of people died as a result. I find no where that the Bible paints this in a "good" light. And I certainly don't see where the Bible says that we (or they) should follow in that example. It is an account of what happened. Why are you looking for "morality" in places it isn't meant to be found?
It's inspiring that you seem to share my view of the bible as a historic document and not any sort of divine truth. Because, you know, if it were divine truth, it would be saying that we SHOULD be selling our daughters, even today. There are good numbers of other examples, such as God forcing Abraham to be ready to sacrifice his only son and so on.
If it's not divine truth, why should we follow the rules in it that are blatantly monstrous or stupid today? Why should anyone refer to things in the bible for legal, moral or ethical guidance ...
Just out of curiousity, how am I bashing you? I have pointed out that you haven't answered my questions even though you said that you have. And I am defending my faith and the Bible.
In any case, a lot of what you seem to have issue with is "Old Law" versus "New Law". Erian_7 can probably answer that far better than I can (and he can come back at any time). But I'll give it a shot...
Old law -- this is what you are finding in the Old Testament and Leviticus and so on. It has a lot of importance and significance to it if you research the reasons why the laws came to be in the first place, what some of the stories behind them are, and so on. There is a lot of good information in there and a lot of good insight into the history of mankind and so on. Divinely inspired? Possibly debatable, but ultimately falls on the person making that determination.
New law -- this is where Jesus came in and upset the status quo. The Jews of the time really seemed to have lost the reasons behind the old law. They were making it very ritualistic and they had lost touch with the "morality" of why the law was put in place in the first place. Jesus came in a really put a whole new spin on the law and told the people to look past the letter of the law and look at the point of why the law was put there in the first place. Instead of taking the literal stance of "thou shalt not kill" look to more the idea behind the law which really means "don't even think about it".
We should all probably look the the "New Law" concept for many things. Instead of "selling your daughter" we should treat women with the respect that they deserve. Instead of "slavery" we should look for forgiveness and make right the wrongs we have done and we really forgive those that seek forgiveness. Even the little things like not eating shellfish -- is it that bad to say that we should be probably be eating healthy things? We can now make it so that shellfish is not harmful to us, so there really isn't any harm in eating it.
It helps to take the Bible as a whole rather than to pick it apart and point out every little tiny obscure detail found in Leviticus or Judges.
If that is so, why do the "obnoxious christians" refer to what you call Old Law in how we should live today? Why is Creationism so important that we get a battle about it vs evolution, if it's just a document about what people believed back then? The problem is that more or less all christians refer to Jesus to show how their religion is tolerant and sensible, but then they quote Paulus or Leviticus when discussing how THEY think we should all live today.
Oh, and if you need to defend your faith or the bible from me, I think you have made some odd assumptions. The bible is what it is, no matter what you or I think of it. It doesn't need to be defended. Denying that it has certain monstrous things in it is rather unreasonable. And you certainly don't need to defend your own faith from me; I have never challenged your right to believe whatever you want.
If that is so, why do the "obnoxious christians" refer to what you call Old Law in how we should live today? Why is Creationism so important that we get a battle about it vs evolution, if it's just a document about what people believed back then? The problem is that more or less all christians refer to Jesus to show how their religion is tolerant and sensible, but then they quote Paulus or Leviticus when discussing how THEY think we should all live today.
Paulus? What's that?
Again with the over generalizations. "Obnoxious Christians", "all Christians"... Seriously, have you actually had "Christians" (and if so I use the term very loosely here) that have come up to you and told you that you should use the Levitical Law to sell your daughter. There probably are some -- there always seem to be psycho examples of any group -- but has this really happened to you even once in your lifetime? Twice? Five times? I guess that while possible, it's pretty hard for me to believe. In any case you keep implying that this is happening all the time. Just out of curiousity, how often are these "obnoxious Christians" telling you that you need to be following the Levitical Law? When have I used Levitical Law to tell you how you should live? (Or am I not part of "all Christians"?)
Of all the Christians that I know, (and I know quite a few) I don't think that I have heard any of them quote Leviticus as to how we should live today. And I've even known quite a few "obnoxious" ones. I'm sure that there are some out there, but then I really feel like they are missing the point of the Bible as a whole.
And the Creation account shouldn't be all that important. It has nothing to do with salvation or most other important doctrinal issues in the Bible.
As far as defending the Bible -- you keep misquoting or misrepresenting things time and again. You have yet to put the "truly monstrous" things in context and strongly imply that that it is really really bad that these events are even mentioned. Perhaps you think that it would have been better if they had turned a blind eye to bad things that happened and never documented them. Maybe we should forget or ignore that 9/11 ever happened. You imply that the point is that the Bible says that we should be doing these things, when the Bible says nothing of the sort. You're right -- the Bible is what it is -- but you don't seem to know what it is or what it is about.
And you certainly don't need to defend your own faith from me; I have never challenged your right to believe whatever you want.
True, you haven't. At the same time you keep mentioning what "all Christians" believe when it isn't true. In that regard, since I consider that I am part of "all Christians", I feel the need to make sure you understand what Christians do and don't believe.
Why is Creationism so important that we get a battle about it vs evolution, if it's just a document about what people believed back then?
I think that part of the real reason behind the debate is that there are people (on both sides) that feel that evolution challenges the validity of the Bible.
I don't feel that it can be or even should be a test for the validity of the Bible -- I don't feel that the Genesis account of creation was meant to be taken literally. I feel that it was written to say that God created -- well, everything. Not necessarily in seven days and not necessarily without the "aid" of evolution. I mean, think about it. How much would Moses (the assumed author of Genesis) have understood about the creation of the universe when by that point in time so much life had come and gone? Unfortunately, again on both sides, people feel the need to take a literal English word for word interpretation of ancient Hebrew poetic scriptures and either try and prove that it either proves or disproves the Bible.
Moff Rimmer, since you feel the need to keep bashing me even after I had left...
But, umm... you haven't left.
Bubbagump, I have a problem with some things you have said that don't fit together very well.
Are you an atheist who doesn't want to participate in any religious activity at all? Then feel free - but don't tell me how to live my life, publicly or otherwise. You tolerate me, and I'll tolerate you.
How do these two statements fit together? Was the second one a good example of your own "tolerance", and is this what we can expect to learn from you?
It would seem to me that the reason so many atheists are upset with the rest of the world is that they don't want ANYONE telling them they have to behave. In other words, they seem to wish that there were no civilization at all and that they didn't have to treat the people around them with respect. If you want to act like a savage, move into the jungle.
The first was a broad, general statement, in effect using your own reasoning to show the absurdity of restricting religion.
The second was a somewhat less broad, but still general, statement regarding the type of compromises sometimes necessary in order to maintain society.
To combine the two statements: Each of us must in some way compromise our own personal freedom in order to get along. For example, (unless I live in a nudist colony) I can't run naked through the streets because it makes my neighbors uncomfortable and because many of them find it offensive. As a society we can come together to determine exactly what constitutes inappropriate behavior. Since we live in a representative republic, we have a mechanism called "the vote" that we use to discern majority opinion and we have another mechanism called "the rule of law" to enforce these societal decisions on dissenters. The concept of the representative republic (as opposed to pure democracy) is in place, as are various laws, to make sure that the rights of minority groups and individuals are not trampled upon. Sure, it's not a perfect system, but it's the best we've got, and in principle (if not always in execution) I think it's a pretty good system. With that said, in matters where there is no definite law in place and in matters that do not infringe on others' rights, I should have the freedom to do as I please, as should you.
Having read your past comments, it seems you have a different opinion of such matters. It seems to me - and I admit I could be wrong here - that in essence you want Christians to all stay away from you, to refrain from talking about Christian topics when you're around, and to abandon all their beliefs when such disagree with your beliefs. You, of course, are free to do as you like, to express your beliefs as you like, and to misrepresent or malign Christians as you like.
You've stated several times that you don't care what others believe and that you don't know the answers yourself. You've also shared a number of strongly-phrased opinions on other matters. Further, you've exhibited a repeated disinterest or inability to answer critiques of several of your statements, and you've exhibited a high degree of ignorance concerning several topics. In sum, you've shown several times that you don't know what you're talking about and that you're willing to draw a conclusion anyway. Personally, I'm okay with that - if that's the way you want to think, it's your choice.
But don't get mad at me because I do know some of the answers or because I know more about a given topic than you. And if you do find a need to address my beliefs, please get your facts straight before you go spouting off accusations. There's no need to be so uncivil about it.
It seems you do have a grasp of how democracy works, including the protection of the rights of minorities. Of course, this stands in contrast with the categorical statement you made before, that if the majority wants something, the minorities should always obey. And blaming me for various things doesn't change the fact that saying that atheists don't want anyone telling them they have to behave and that atheists want to act like savages is very offensive. As I said, it's a good example of why religious people should NOT be allowed to make policy despite protections that exist in various civil rights (blasphemy laws, for example, hurt freedom of speech, a law put into place to protect minorities from the majority). It is also a good example of the "tolerance" we can expect from an unchecked religious majority making policies.
It seems you do have a grasp of how democracy works, including the protection of the rights of minorities. Of course, this stands in contrast with the categorical statement you made before, that if the majority wants something, the minorities should always obey. And blaming me for various things doesn't change the fact that saying that atheists don't want anyone telling them they have to behave and that atheists want to act like savages is very offensive. As I said, it's a good example of why religious people should NOT be allowed to make policy despite protections that exist in various civil rights (blasphemy laws, for example, hurt freedom of speech, a law put into place to protect minorities from the majority). It is also a good example of the "tolerance" we can expect from an unchecked religious majority making policies.
The "categorical statement" has already been explained.
You haven't been blamed for anything other than being wrong.
Exactly who do you want telling you how to behave, then?
I've already explained that it's impossible to divorce policy from religion without destroying all religion, which is itself the establishment of a religion - secular humanism.
Freedom of speech was instituted to protect both majorities and minorities from totalitarian authorities, not minorities from majorities.
If you want to be tolerated, then why won't you tolerate in return?
So are you saying it's still figuratively true?
Depends on what you mean by "figuratively".
Hebrew poetry does things (often) in threes. There are many places in the Bible where it will say the same thing three times in three different ways.
For example: Genesis 1:27 -- So God created man in His own image, in the image and likeness of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Some people like to split up one or more portions of the text and take what they want it to say. The truth is (as near as I understand it) that the author(s) are saying the same thing three different ways to make sure that the point gets across. The Hebrew words here are really tricky and many times they use different Hebrew words that translate to the same English word. "Image" I believe is one of those and it carries a lot of nuances that are lost in translation and doesn't necessarily means "looks like".
At any rate, if you look at the Genesis 1 account of creation, it really doesn't make sense in the order that they are given. The first day you have light and dark but you don't have the sun until day 4. In fact plants don't come around until day 3 and not sure about how we got plants without the sun.
Again, Hebrew poetry deals in threes. So take a look at the first three verses. God separates the light from the dark. God separates the sky from the water. God separates the water from the land. Those are the first three days. See any kind of pattern that is repeated? The first three "days" deal with God creating borders/boundaries/separations. Next three "days" -- God created the sun, moon and stars. God created the birds and fish. God created all other living creatures. See any other pattern? Basically God created all life.
So what can Christians take away from the Genesis story? The way I see it, God created rules to the universe -- science or what have you. Some things give off light. When there is light you can see. If you are standing on dry land, you don't have to swim. You can make this as complicated (DNA) or simple (seasons) as you want. In addition, if it exists, it exists because God put it there.
So, when you ask if "it's still figuratively true" -- I believe that God created everything. He very well may have used evolution to put his creations on the earth. He may have just put the creatures there "magically" (unlikely, but if God is God, there is no reason why he couldn't). I believe that the Genesis 1 account is written like it is to give glory to God. Anything more than that, you can make your own determination.
Does that help?
EDIT: Way back on page 25 of this thread I wrote a whole long bit on creation and such. (Towards the bottom of the page.) Pretty much, I was misinformed growing up. I'm not going to pretend like I have all the answers, but I feel like I keep getting closer.
I can't emphasize enough that while most of what we need for salvation and as far as what happened in different places at different times (a history textbook) the English translation is fine. But the Old Testament was written in (mostly) ancient Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Greek and Aramaic (I believe). The English language does not do these languages justice. We lose a lot in the translation. And I am far from a linguistic scholar. I can try and do some research, but when people start to pick apart things like the Genesis 1 story, it's difficult at best because I don't know ancient Hebrew. For example, "day" isn't translated quite right, but it's the closest approximation we have. It has nuances of "event" as in 'pow!, bang!' and "time" as in duration and "majesty" or something like that. All we get is "day" which sounds lame in comparison.
I'm rambling. Again, hope that helps.
As I said, it's a good example of why religious people should NOT be allowed to make policy despite protections that exist in various civil rights (blasphemy laws, for example, hurt freedom of speech, a law put into place to protect minorities from the majority).
I'm going to ask a question knowing that it really belongs on a "Civil Political Discussion" since this has far more to do with politics than religion, but...
So, what is your "solution"?
EDIT: I'm sorry, I really need to let this go.
You keep talking about "blasphemy laws". While I understand what you are saying, I'm really curious -- What "blasphemy laws" are currently in existence? I'm probably not sure since I am "one of them", but I would really like some specific examples so that I can get a proper frame of reference. Or are you just saying -- "Hypothetically speaking, if any one religious group gains a majority, this is one outcome that could happen."?
The solution is simple. We keep respecting the civil liberties that are in place, no matter who wants to change them. No matter how good their goals with removing the liberties are. No matter how much better everything becomes "if we can just make this country christian". No matter who gets his religious or otherwise feelings hurt by other people's freedom of speech.
And for an example, you should know that the UN decided that a prohibition on hurting people's religious feelings would be a good idea. Of course, this was voted against by the entire western world, but the resolution passed. Part of this prohibition was that the declaration of human rights should be amended so that freedom of speech was only to be had under "responsibility" not to hurt religious feelings.
Does that sound serious to you?
Bubbagump:
You haven't explained your statement to any kind of satisfaction to me. I am still quite angry that you called me a savage.
I don't NEED ANYONE to tell me how to behave. I know how to behave, and my goal in life is not to fling feces on anyone. I respect the law, and I want to be a part of society... but society is NOT allowed to force me to pay lip service to anything I don't believe in. And if someone wants to take away my freedom of speech or my freedom of religion, they are THE ENEMY. Hence my view of christian lobbyists trying to institute blasphemy laws as THE ENEMY.
Read up on freedom of speech.
Keeping all official power away from formal religion is the way it's been for ages now. I notice that religion still exists. Don't give me anything about "total destruction of all religion". Religion only requires freedom of religion to live, and religion has that.
Oh, and I am NOT tolerated by you. You want to send me into the jungle. Big reason to respect your views, wouldn't you say?
The solution is simple. We keep respecting the civil liberties that are in place, no matter who wants to change them. No matter how good their goals with removing the liberties are. No matter how much better everything becomes "if we can just make this country christian". No matter who gets his religious or otherwise feelings hurt by other people's freedom of speech.
And for an example, you should know that the UN decided that a prohibition on hurting people's religious feelings would be a good idea. Of course, this was voted against by the entire western world, but the resolution passed. Part of this prohibition was that the declaration of human rights should be amended so that freedom of speech was only to be had under "responsibility" not to hurt religious feelings.
Does that sound serious to you?
"We keep respecting the civil liberties that are in place..."
So how do we do that? You have made it sound like that is an impossibility.
And, does the UN actually have any power? I mean, it looks pretty and sounds important, but does it actually have any real power? In which case, does it really matter what they say? If I laugh at a Mormon, is the UN going to come down on me? (Not that I would -- I'm speaking hypothetically.)
EDIT: Also, you brought up "lip service" again. The one example you gave, does it include "lip service"? It sounds more to me like the UN wants to put in place a "rule" such that people of different religions can travel to different countries without fear of getting "burned at the stake" -- figuratively or literally -- for what they believe in. Especially when said tourists may not fully understand or appreciate the rules or customs in the area. As such it feels more like a law enforcing tolerance rather than the other way around -- or am I missing something? Is there a "lip service" "blasphemy" law that is currently in place?
Bubbagump:
You haven't explained your statement to any kind of satisfaction to me.
Nonetheless, I explained it. If you're not satisfied with the explanation, there's really not much I can do about it.
I am still quite angry that you called me a savage.
If you look a bit more closely, you'll see that I said "if you want to live like a savage". That is to say, if you want to live without the rules of civilized society, then feel free to do so - somewhere away from civilized society. And, by the way, that was intended as a general-address sort of statement and was not directed at you personally.
I don't NEED ANYONE to tell me how to behave.
Careful, you're getting close to making my point for me.
I know how to behave, and my goal in life is not to fling feces on anyone. I respect the law, and I want to be a part of society...
But there are plenty of people who don't know how to behave or don't want to behave, and that's where laws come in.
...but society is NOT allowed to force me to pay lip service to anything I don't believe in.
And no one is trying to. We're only trying to get you to respect the rights of others just as you'd like us to respect your rights.
Keeping all official power away from formal religion is the way it's been for ages now.
Actually, no. The Constitution specifically decrees that the government shall make no law establishing a state religion - such as Secular Humanism or Atheism. It says nothing about "separation of church and state" or anything even remotely similar. By the way, that specific phrase "separation of church and state" was used in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group of churches - it has no legal bearing whatsoever. Further, if one reads the letter itself, Jefferson specifies that the intent of the Constitution is to prevent the federal government from abridging religious freedom while allowing those with religious views to express them through public and private service as they see fit. He even makes a statement to the effect that government is doomed if religious people fail to get involved. It's a very interesting read, as are the Federalist Papers. I highly recommend them.
Oh, and I am NOT tolerated by you. You want to send me into the jungle.
Oh, brother. Get over yourself. Check the post - I never said I wanted to send you to the jungle. I only said you're welcome to leave if you don't like it here. And, again, it was only a generic "you" statement and was not directed at you personally.
And concerning the (totally useless and pointless - as well as unenforceable) UN statement, isn't that a sort of blanket blasphemy law? What happens in you say, "I don't believe in God," in a Muslim country? Is the UN going to come shoot you?
Actually, no. The Constitution specifically decrees that the government shall make no law establishing a state religion - such as Secular Humanism or Atheism. It says nothing about "separation of church and state" or anything even remotely similar. By the way, that specific phrase "separation of church and state" was used in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group of churches - it has no legal bearing whatsoever. Further, if one reads the letter itself, Jefferson specifies that the intent of the Constitution is to prevent the federal government from abridging religious freedom while allowing those with religious views to express them through public and private service as they see fit. He even makes a statement to the effect that government is doomed if religious people fail to get involved.
This was interesting. I have a question though and I am asking honestly -- doesn't one of the first few amendments to the Constitution specifically address the religious issue? I know I could look it up, but I'm feeling lazy right now.
The civility has somewhat lessened here, but I'll attempt to make a contribution anyway.
Corian and Moff, on the topic of laws originating from and/or based on religious ideals, seem to represent some exreme views, though not completely opposing ones. Here is my point of view on the topic:
I agree with Moff that a civil society must restrict some personal freedoms (ex., running around naked) in order to function to the benefit of its citizens (or a majority of those citizens, in the case of a minority of nudists, etc.).
I would also point out that our First Amendment rights do not protect vulgar speech, or other forms of communication without redeeming social worth. What does this mean and how far does it extend to blasphemy laws? That ultimately falls to opinion, and is subject to the high courts' interpretation of the laws' intent, individual circumstances, and the perceived majority's moral code, either currently or when the Bill of Rights was written.
On the somewhat separate topic of the UN's resolution to protect religious freedom, it is my opinion that this was a wholly political move to mollify Islamic nations after the political cartoon fiasco. Its use in international courts, I predict, will only be to justify prosecuting more people under Islamic laws, and will probably never be properly used to defend a Christian or Jew or Buddhist. I think Corian agrees with me, but sarcasm is sometimes hard to interpret in text form.
Kind of a "Trample or Be Trampled" mentality?
Back in town for a day or two, between business trips. Let me lay out what I'd think of as ideal:
1. Private citizens can display christmas trees and crosses to their hearts' content. They can put up granite tablets with the Ten Commandments on their front lawns, if they want to. But they can't use taxpayer money to put the Ten Commandments in front a federal courthouse, and they can't tell their neighbors to take down the menorah or spaghetti monster decoration or whatever is on their front lawns.
2. People can pray in public all they want, but not if they obstruct passage to/from public areas by so doing. Nor can they require prayer as part of admission to a non-religious public event.
3. Churches can teach whatever they wish in Sunday School, or preach what they wish in sermons, or whatever. In exchange, they accept that science class should be limited to science-- i.e., theories that present explanations for natural phenomena that are supported by physical evidence. Parents have the right to challenge that physical evidence, if they feel that it's being misrepresented -- but from a position of knowledge. Lack of understanding of a theory does not constitute a legitimate challenge to the evidence supporting that theory. Likewise, "I just don't believe it" isn't a legitimate gripe, if it's not supported with counter-evidence related to the case in point.
4. Churches can enjoy tax-exempt status and non-interference from the government. In return, they refrain from interfering with others via government: no trying to pass laws preventing non-Christians from holding government office, or requiring a government-sponsored "National Jesus Day," or whatever. Military recruits cannot be proselyzed or converted by the military as part of their military training, and any investigation into said occurrences should be undertaken by civilian personnel not affiliated with the religion in question.
Like all compromises, this situation results in some trampling and being trampled for all parties concerned. But it seems to me the one most likely to allow different faiths and non-faiths to co-exist.
Depends on what you mean by "figuratively"...and lots of other stuff.
Just nitpicking here, but Genesis is not technically poetry; it is narrative in nature. While triple repetition of concepts is often used in Hebrew poetry, it is primarily a theological device rather than a poetic device.
Concerning the dual creation accounts, you are quite correct. They are not separate accounts, but rather recount the same events but with a different emphasis and purpose. The first account describes how God made everything, while the second account effectively "zooms in" to to set the stage for the proceeding story. The theory that the accounts are separate was first seriously suggested by critics in the 19th century, and though it still gets a lot of play it has been largely discarded by most modern scholars, including those who are not Christian.
At any rate, if you look at the Genesis 1 account of creation, it really doesn't make sense in the order that they are given. The first day you have light and dark but you don't have the sun until day 4. In fact plants don't come around until day 3 and not sure about how we got plants without the sun.
It's true these statements don't make sense - if you accept the notion that the world and life were created over a long period of time. However, I should mention that there are theories - backed up by serious science - that support the possibility of a literal 7-day creation.
And you're also correct that certain nuances can be lost through translation. Having studied the biblical languages (Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and even a bit of Chaldean - I missed out on Greek) at the collegiate and graduate level, I'm amazed at the details I find in the scriptures. However, with that said, I still contend that most English translations are more than adequate for anything short of the deepest studies.
Not trying to start any arguments here; just trying to lend a hand. :-)
Actually, no. The Constitution specifically decrees that the government shall make no law establishing a state religion - such as Secular Humanism or Atheism. It says nothing about "separation of church and state" or anything even remotely similar.
I was always curious about the steps of this reasoning.
(1) Declare religious neutrality to be the "secular humanist religion."(2) Correctly cite the Establishment Clause in the Bill of Rights.
(3) Claim that the establishment clause forbids the establishment of the "secularist religion," and therefore the latter must go.
(4) Replace the secular stuff with Christian stuff.
Out of curiousity, if I follow these steps, how does that not establish a state religion? And it almost seems like using non-establishment as a premise to prevent the establishment of "non-establishmentism," if you see what I mean. I'm not trying to be argumentative; rather, it seems quite obvious to me that I'm missing something here, and I'm wondering if someone can fill me in.
The civility has somewhat lessened here, but I'll attempt to make a contribution anyway.
I agree, and I have really made an attempt to reign it in a bit recently. My apologies on my (perhaps) less civil posts.
Corian and Moff, on the topic of laws originating from and/or based on religious ideals, seem to represent some exreme views, though not completely opposing ones.
I agree. And thank you for your insight.
Although, I'm really trying to stay away from making judgement calls on laws and legality -- it has little to do with the "religious" part of the discussions and I really don't know that much about it. Hence the reason I've been asking questions about the legal aspect rather than say what's right or wrong.
Some stuffThis was interesting. I have a question though and I am asking honestly -- doesn't one of the first few amendments to the Constitution specifically address the religious issue? I know I could look it up, but I'm feeling lazy right now.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Back in town for a day or two, between business trips. Let me lay out what I'd think of as ideal:...
Welcome back -- and good stuff.
Man that military officer really did you wrong. If I could, I'd like to smack him one for you. That must have really been one bad fiasco. You can let me know more about it over that promised beer...
Actually, no. The Constitution specifically decrees that the government shall make no law establishing a state religion - such as Secular Humanism or Atheism. It says nothing about "separation of church and state" or anything even remotely similar.I was always curious about the steps of this reasoning.
(1) Declare religious neutrality to be the "secular humanist religion."
(2) Correctly cite the Establishment Clause in the Bill of Rights.
(3) Claim that the establishment clause forbids the establishment of the "secularist religion," and therefore the latter must go.
(4) Replace the secular stuff with Christian stuff.Out of curiousity, if I follow these steps, how does that not establish a state religion? And it almost seems like using non-establishment as a premise to prevent the establishment of "non-establishmentism," if you see what I mean. I'm not trying to be argumentative; rather, it seems quite obvious to me that I'm missing something here, and I'm wondering if someone can fill me in.
You're somewhat misinterpreting my intentions:
I'm not "declaring" religious neutrality to be anyting. However, if all expressions of all other religions are left out, then Secular Humanism becomes the default religion as a result. In other words, it becomes the only religion that can be legally expressed, and thus the only legal religion.
Also, I would never argue that Secular Humanism "must go". Rather, I would argue that Secular Humanists should have the same rights as everyone else rather than legal supremacy over them.
And I'd skip step 4 altogether.
The point is, once you start restricting religious expression (and remember, I'm not talking about practices that infringe on the rights of others here) you are by default giving power to the opposing viewpoint. Rather than restricting either side at all, I propose that we grant all sides equal freedom so that no one religion/philosophy/belief system can gain power over another. You can bow to Buddha, I can pray to Jesus, an atheist can refrain from praying, our friends can join us, and we can all stand side-by-side in the public square at the same time.
Back in town for a day or two, between business trips. Let me lay out what I'd think of as ideal:...Welcome back -- and good stuff.
Man that military officer really did you wrong. If I could, I'd like to smack him one for you. That must have really been one bad fiasco. You can let me know more about it over that promised beer...
I must admit I'm rather surprised by that incident (and sorry for it, too, by the way). My wife - at the time a lowly Specialist in the Army and a practicing Wiccan - had no trouble being allowed to stay out of religious services when she requested it.
... if you accept the notion that the world and life were created over a long period of time. However, I should mention that there are theories - backed up by serious science - that support the possibility of a literal 7-day creation.
(Emphasis mine)
I too don't want to get into a debate over this. I was embarassed by "answers in Genesis" such that I became bitter and wonder if there is "serious science" on a literal 7-day creation. You gave a site earlier that looked like it could have some good stuff, but even that seemed to gloss over a lot of the more nit-picky stuff. Do you have any references to recent stuff -- magazines or papers etc. -- from accountable sources that I can read up on it? Just trying to keep informed on both sides.
You're somewhat misinterpreting my intentions.
I thought I must be, so I figured I'd ask. I'm glad now that I did!
Rather, I would argue that Secular Humanists should have the same rights as everyone else rather than legal supremacy over them.
Yeah, I think I'm with you now.
And I'd skip step 4 altogether.
Absolutely -- that last step is the one that I really wasn't getting. As long as it's left out, everything looks really good to me. Thanks for the reply.
That must have really been one bad fiasco. You can let me know more about it over that promised beer...
I still look forward to our beer, but there's really not much more to say on the topic; the "suggestion" was given, and it was hardly my place to question it. And, really, smacking him would be horribly counter-productive; he was just doing what he thought was right, and overall he seemed to me to be a pretty decent guy. Unfortunately, he just didn't realize that his idea of right, in this case, conflicted with the rights of others. (I also don't know if he himself was simply relaying more widespread orders, although I suspect he might have been). But overall, any slight wrong done to me personally is totally insignificant compared to the wrong that will eventually be done to his own cause -- as we discussed earlier on this thread, annoying people isn't really a good way to convert them.
This next item is a totally unrelated one -- let it be known that I absolutely did not (and still wouldn't) blow any offical whistles; no harm, no foul, and I wouldn't even have mentioned it except that many people apparently don't realize that this sort of thing happens. Anyway, apparently a big story over proselytizing at the Air Force Academy came up not too long ago; investigation concluded that no overt discrimination could be proven, but sensitivity training is now mandatory. The net effect, I'm led to understand, is that perfectly blameless officers and cadets who happen to be Christian are now required to attend briefings explaining, in essence, that non-Christians are sue-happy pansies who hate them. This hardly seems to me like a solution that helps anyone! Rather, it occurs to me that churches could do themselves, and everyone else, a lot of good by speaking to their memberships about not using temporal positions of authority to push their faith on others -- regardless of how tempting it may seem at the time.
Lots o stuff on Creation...
There are a lot of things that don't make sense to me when looked at the way you mentioned here with how I understand how the world and God "work". I'm not saying that I am right, but I just don't necessarily agree with you. That could change depending on new developments that come up.
For example --
They are not separate accounts, but rather recount the same events but with a different emphasis and purpose. The first account describes how God made everything, while the second account effectively "zooms in" to set the stage for the proceeding story.
Assuming that this is true, then what difference do the number of days make? The order of the days don't match up. If days 1-3 are the same as days 4-6 then wouldn't the whole creation story have taken place within three days? Four if you count the day of rest? So why is there still the 7 day concept if that is the case?
Again, I'm not really looking for a big discussion on this. If you have some credible sources, let me know and I'll take a look at them.
Part of what I just wanted to say was that at this point I disagree with you -- and that is ok. Unfortunately for me, all I really have to go on is "it just doesn't feel right to me". Which admittedly isn't much of an argument to work from. Let me know some good sources and I'll take a look at them.
Actually, no. The Constitution specifically decrees that the government shall make no law establishing a state religion - such as Secular Humanism or Atheism. It says nothing about "separation of church and state" or anything even remotely similar.I was always curious about the steps of this reasoning.
(1) Declare religious neutrality to be the "secular humanist religion."
(2) Correctly cite the Establishment Clause in the Bill of Rights.
(3) Claim that the establishment clause forbids the establishment of the "secularist religion," and therefore the latter must go.
(4) Replace the secular stuff with Christian stuff.Out of curiousity, if I follow these steps, how does that not establish a state religion? And it almost seems like using non-establishment as a premise to prevent the establishment of "non-establishmentism," if you see what I mean. I'm not trying to be argumentative; rather, it seems quite obvious to me that I'm missing something here, and I'm wondering if someone can fill me in.
You're somewhat misinterpreting my intentions:
I'm not "declaring" religious neutrality to be anyting. However, if all expressions of all other religions are left out, then Secular Humanism becomes the default religion as a result. In other words, it becomes the only religion that can be legally expressed, and thus the only legal religion.
Also, I would never argue that Secular Humanism "must go". Rather, I would argue that Secular Humanists should have the same rights as everyone else rather than legal supremacy over them.
And I'd skip step 4 altogether.
The point is, once you start restricting religious expression (and remember, I'm not talking about practices that infringe on the rights of others here) you are by default giving power to the opposing viewpoint. Rather than restricting either side at all, I propose that we grant all sides equal freedom so that no one religion/philosophy/belief system can gain power over another. You can...
So, should the government then spend money on religious monuments? If it doesn't, is it supporting secular humanism by not supporting religion (which seems to be what you're saying)? If it should, who decides which of the literally thousands of religions should get the money? And what could the atheists spend theirs on? Sorry, but I don't understand how the establishment clause is supposed to work if not supporting religion is a religion.
Oh, and you can pray in public. No one stops you unless you're causing a disturbance. You can't, however, use your position as part of the executive or government agency or public employee to lead force others to pay for it through their taxes by erecting public monuments with public funds or participate in a ceremony that not part of their faith. I assume you wouldn't approve if you were forced to take part in Eid or Hannukah, for example. That's what praying to God is to ahteists.
Serious question -- do you think that this would change if there wasn't religion? I feel like discrimination and manipulation will happen with or without religion. Religion feels like an easy scapegoat.At the same time I am not condoning the discrimination that religions do. This does need to be brought up and stopped.
Moff sorry for responding so late, I had some stuff to do, but anyway I'll try to expain myself.
Yes, I believe that religion cover in its midst descrimination. And it lets to be used by politicians for their insane machinations.
To continue I would say that I agree with what mothman said. People shouldn't have need for a religion nowadays. I understand that in earlier versions of society religion played a major part of every day life even by trying to explain certain every day effects like the rising and falling of the life-giving sun.
Nevertheless, the world has progressed a lot and for me humanity does not need that kind of guidance. Anyway that is my opinion. And I'm happy that you are such an openminded person.
I would say that I agree with what mothman said. People shouldn't have need for a religion nowadays.
...
Nevertheless, the world has progressed a lot and for me humanity does not need that kind of guidance. Anyway that is my opinion.
I've heard that before and that reasoning makes sense to me and I'm cool with that.
Just not sure how that related to the discrimination question.
EDIT -- never mind, I see you changed your post.
That phrase - "for me" - is the kicker here. There are, in fact, very significant differences between religions that have very significant implications for societies collectively and individuals particularly. And no, these religions to NOT speak about the same god, though your personal belief system may consider them so.And there is the problem. You try to find the differences. In reality there are no differences except of the ones that we have dictated our eyes to see. In reality you can see that those religions pray to the same god but you do not let yourself. Those three religions come from the old testament and this surely means that they have the same god. For me it does not matter how each of them percieve Jesus because in this part we have the arrogance that I know better, the strive for power and many other things inherent in the nature of humanity.
I too have a problem with discrimination. But there's a difficulty here when one attempts to draw the line. For example, if a Hare Krishnan wears an orange robe and sports a shaved head that's a public demonstration of his religion. If a Wiccan wears a pentagram it's a public display of religious belief. If a Catholic sits in a bar and talks about his Catholic faith with your buddies that's a public display of religion. If I advocate for tougher penalties for shoplifters it's a public expression of my beliefs. Should all religious speech, symbols, etc, be banned from public life? No, of course not - it's not even possible, much less practical.
I agree with you that this is a difficult line to draw. But how many do you think can trully tolerate another person. On the other hand there are many who fall victim to this by politicians and other world saviors as I mentioned in previous post.
Nevertheless, the world has progressed a lot and for me humanity does not need that kind of guidance.
There are other benefits to church and religion besides just "guidance" on how to live our lives. Many of which have very little to do with "spiritual matters". This can be as simple as simple as a regular meeting time and place to get together with friends to as complicated as --
A few years ago, really good friends of ours gave birth to a baby with Downs Syndrome and had all kinds of heart problems (not fully developed) and so on. The church brought them food for a month, took turns taking watches at the hospital and was generally there for moral support.
I'm not saying that this doesn't happen outside of the church or religion -- in fact I'm sure it does -- but for some reason it feels like more of an effort to actually stay in touch and meet up with friends outside of church.
I'm also not saying that that is a good reason to be "churched" or to get religion. I'm just trying to say that there are other benefits to religion than just getting some "guidance".
So are you saying it's still figuratively true?But don't forget, "literally" also means "figuratively."
Depends on what you mean by "figuratively"....
Well, let's see...
Literally, what I'm talking about is that figuratively speaking the literal truth of a figurative passage is...
Aw, never mind -- I don't even know what I'm saying anymore.
... if you accept the notion that the world and life were created over a long period of time. However, I should mention that there are theories - backed up by serious science - that support the possibility of a literal 7-day creation.(Emphasis mine)
I too don't want to get into a debate over this. I was embarassed by "answers in Genesis" such that I became bitter and wonder if there is "serious science" on a literal 7-day creation. You gave a site earlier that looked like it could have some good stuff, but even that seemed to gloss over a lot of the more nit-picky stuff. Do you have any references to recent stuff -- magazines or papers etc. -- from accountable sources that I can read up on it? Just trying to keep informed on both sides.
Yeah, the website's only got a little stuff on it. I recommend checking out some of the books in their store (you can get them in a library, of course, rather than buying them), and I also recommend the writings of Hugh Ross.
For entertainment purposes (since he's a little kooky and because I don't agree with some of his assertions regarding cryptozoology, et al), you might want to check out Kent Hovind at drdino.com.
So are you saying it's still figuratively true?But don't forget, "literally" also means "figuratively."
Depends on what you mean by "figuratively"....Well, let's see...
Literally, what I'm talking about is that figuratively speaking the literal truth of a figurative passage is...
Aw, never mind -- I don't even know what I'm saying anymore.
My blood is literally boiling as a result of your misuse of the word "literally".