Is Religion no longer needed?

Lordpendragon

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,814
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
The simple answer to the Op of whether religion is crucial, is surely no, not crucial. Any brief look around the world will show you highly functional societies in which religion plays almost no role.

The UK has only 4% regular church goers, though many more class themselves as christians.

Our law is based on ethical jurisprudence. We can make up our own minds as to what is right and wrong and in this respect, the catholic church has been forced to allow gay adoptions from its orphanages. Gay adoption is rightly legal, the church is acting against the law. People or organisations acting against the law normally leads to a worse society.

Ethics have nothing to do with morals - they are rather their antidote. :smile:
 

DanielForever

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Posts
185
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Age
34
Location
England
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
religion hates gays,
and when religion tries to pardon itself from hating gays, its stops being the religion its supposed to pratice,
perhaps if religious sorts who dont want to hate gays wish to stop, they should stop being religious

my little point is that all throughout history religion has updated and eased itself to keep up with modern values, religion never teaches us anything new at all, in fact, when something becomes grossly unpopular, religion abandons it

ie: (for the Church of England at least) equality of women, less hostility towards gays, preachers allowed to marry, sex before marriage etc etc, all these things were very very wrong ONCE, now the church acts as if it forever endorsed human equality

religion was only ever a means of control, people have inate morals, people know not to kill each other or rape each other. Religion has never been a consistant staple, a relentless beacon of stability, its a buisness.

There is NOTHING religion can offer people besides courage and hope, things that without all the misery religion brings, would be abundant
 

Full_Phil

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Posts
223
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Age
62
Location
Northeastern Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
religion hates gays,
and when religion tries to pardon itself from hating gays, its stops being the religion its supposed to pratice,
perhaps if religious sorts who dont want to hate gays wish to stop, they should stop being religious

my little point is that all throughout history religion has updated and eased itself to keep up with modern values, religion never teaches us anything new at all, in fact, when something becomes grossly unpopular, religion abandons it

ie: (for the Church of England at least) equality of women, less hostility towards gays, preachers allowed to marry, sex before marriage etc etc, all these things were very very wrong ONCE, now the church acts as if it forever endorsed human equality

religion was only ever a means of control, people have inate morals, people know not to kill each other or rape each other. Religion has never been a consistant staple, a relentless beacon of stability, its a buisness.

There is NOTHING religion can offer people besides courage and hope, things that without all the misery religion brings, would be abundant

While I am touched by your post, especially your last paragraph, and can understand your frustration in light of a lot of history, I would like to say that all who believe that religion "hates" gays are not completely correct. I have been part of a body of spiritual thought that embraces everyone as being one with God for several years, and while I am not trying to be a spokesman for it, it is sad for me to find people who are not aware that it, and that its acceptance and understanding exists.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
While I am touched by your post, especially your last paragraph, and can understand your frustration in light of a lot of history, I would like to say that all who believe that religion "hates" gays are not completely correct. I have been part of a body of spiritual thought that embraces everyone as being one with God for several years, and while I am not trying to be a spokesman for it, it is sad for me to find people who are not aware that it, and that its acceptance and understanding exists.


I know it exists, but so far it's still in quiet little corners. I wish those who stood for more were more vocal. Unfortunately, the hate-filled ones are.
 

Full_Phil

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Posts
223
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Age
62
Location
Northeastern Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I know it exists, but so far it's still in quiet little corners. I wish those who stood for more were more vocal. Unfortunately, the hate-filled ones are.

Those who believe in acceptance and respect also accept and respect one's individual right to choose their religious affiliation and do not try to pull or push them.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Those who believe in acceptance and respect also accept and respect one's individual right to choose their religious affiliation and do not try to pull or push them.


Oh right, I do understand that. But then they must understand that when there are very vocal proponenets of hate rhetoric claiming to represent Christianity, and no one to refute them, that this is what people are going to think of Christians. You can't have it both ways, either you (Christians) care about how you are perceived, or you do not. If the mean-spirited and the hypocritical are the only advocates of religion people hear, then no one can be surprised that those who are not in that category will see it as a group that promotes hatred, and thereby invalidates anything else they claim to believe.

Catholicism lost a great deal of respect in the world for the abhorent way it has and IS handling the Priest molestation issues- still paying off victims in private, still hiring high-priced lawyers to defend them, and still allowing these people access to children, just "somewhere else". When the Bishops and church hierarchy think that their structure is more important that the lives and assholes of our children, then they deserve no more than contempt. Until they take responsibility, there can be no forgiveness, and no one gives a FUCK about what "good" they think they've done in other areas. Get your fingers out of kids' panties before you talk to me about God. Defend your "church" instead of the principles of righteousness, and your weak defense will fall on my deaf ears.

Protestants are no better at all. The level of ignorance and hypocrisy among protestants is mind boggling. Since my association with Christianity was as a protestant, I can speak better as to what I saw there. Yes, they do teach that being gay is wrong, and can be cured. They are also told that as long as they don't act on their feelings, they'll be okay. I fucking hate this- do you have any idea how many lives are simply ruined, horrifically, because these men and women are made to feel like animals? They marry people to whom they are not really sexually attracted, thinking they'll "get better" one day, then years down the raod, kids get to watch their parents go through hell because living a lie really sucks.Suicide becomes an option for everyone, parents and children. SHAME ON THE CHURCH!

Very few protestants have any idea at all how the Bible developed over time, actually very few really understand that the different books were even written by different people! Yeah, I know- mind boggling since the books even carry thier scribe's names, but it's true. I was taught that the Bible was the Word of God himself, and it was all true, every word, even the ones that don't agree with each other or make any sense at all. You are forced to either claim to believe it all, or be a bad Christian. When I see people defending it so vehemently, I understand. It's very compelling for people to follow the leaders of what is one of the most imtimate areas of one's life. It still doesn't make any of it "true". Protestants in general are highly ignorant about their religion. They can quote the Bible, which they feel gives them superiority over Catholics, but they know almost nothing about what the Bible actually is. They read it, but they read NOTHING about it from any other source, other than the occasional Christian writer.

So, what the onlooker sees is this: wars in the name of God, discrimination, fear, self-loathing, years of counselling- all brought about by religion, and by very ignorant people. Not a pretty sight. So yes, there is a great need for the few who are capable of doing better to speak up, or any interest in the authentic message could be very easily lost.
 

Knockernail

1st Like
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Posts
454
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
161
Location
Hicktown upon Misery
Gender
Male
After reading Madame Zora's thread I had to ask myself if Religion still has a crucial role in society.

I don't think it does.

The rise of secularism in most civilized countries has taken away the roles the Church once had. Some would argue that religion is the basis for morals, and morals are the basis for laws. Assuming that is true: Does it matter now that the laws are in place?


Religion still has a crucial role in society. Just because the society are people, and the most of people still needs religion. And this is a fact in the whole world, no matter how civilized are the countries. From Japan to Sweden, Brasil or Congo, including all Europe and North America.

Exists a common moral ruling every society beyond concrete beliefs. (One common moral for every society, i mean). That moral, raised by religion, is still held and supported for many (i think the majority) people. That people sees the church as the biggest supporter of the moral. I think is unviable a world without religion.

I don´t know one nation, political or historical, which works without religion. Socially, of course. If we talk about administrations, laws and country´s management, it´s a long time since we are living out of religion.
 

B_ScaredLittleBoy

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Posts
3,235
Media
0
Likes
19
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
I need religion as much as I need Snow White And The Seven Dwarves, Bambi, or Joseph and his Techincolour Dreamcoat.

I live in the real world, I have no need for fantasy stories.

I'm all for people choosing their own religion and tolerance etc. But I don't think many people choose their own religion. I think their parents do.
 

OmahaBeef

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Posts
999
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Religion still has a crucial role in society. Just because the society are people, and the most of people still needs religion. And this is a fact in the whole world, no matter how civilized are the countries. From Japan to Sweden, Brasil or Congo, including all Europe and North America.

Exists a common moral ruling every society beyond concrete beliefs. (One common moral for every society, i mean). That moral, raised by religion, is still held and supported for many (i think the majority) people. That people sees the church as the biggest supporter of the moral. I think is unviable a world without religion.

I don´t know one nation, political or historical, which works without religion. Socially, of course. If we talk about administrations, laws and country´s management, it´s a long time since we are living out of religion.


Kiamo...this was well-said by Knockernail...and it illustrates my assertion.

But to further it:

Every nation is developed and maintained with religion being an imperative building block of it's make-up. It is a timeless, organic adhesive that cannot, nor will not be eliminated. Forced elimination of course, is tyranny, and has proven to be unsuccessful. You cannot extinguish hearts and minds.

That being said, I adhere to the theory of cyclical history. There is a calculus to history. There is birth, growth, decline, and death...in every nation. It is of my opinion, for example, that the United States is in it's decline stage. When the culture is gradually disassociated from its foundation, the nation is soon extinguished.

I am not a religious person, but nevertheless those of us who are non-religious must understand its importance to a nation as a whole. I see much sullen animosity towards religion in this discussion. However, the minority must repect majority opinion. You see this in the news quite often, in which a small minority raise hell about something of a religious nature and an unneccessary controversy is established. This is non-sense in my opinion.

Here in the United States, we have the Establishment Clause to the Constitution. The only thing this says, is that A) there should be no State-established religion and B) Freedom of religion.

What the Establishment Clause does NOT grant, however, is freedom FROM religion. We have a vocal minority that cannot seem to grasp that.

Just my .02 cents...

...OB
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
<...>
Here in the United States, we have the Establishment Clause to the Constitution. The only thing this says, is that A) there should be no State-established religion and B) Freedom of religion.

What the Establishment Clause does NOT grant, however, is freedom FROM religion. We have a vocal minority that cannot seem to grasp that.

Just my .02 cents...

...OB
OB, I must be just incredibly dense. Please explain to me the part B of the Establishment Clause (as in your post above), I remember the part about A, which actually says that Congress may pass no law supporting the establishment of a state religion (semantics, yes, but still a little different from what you posted) but I dont' recall any part of the Establishment Clause guaranteeing Freedom of religion... and if it does, and my freely chosen religion is agnosticism or atheism, is that freedom also guaranteed?
 

kalipygian

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
1,948
Media
31
Likes
139
Points
193
Age
68
Location
alaska
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Kiamo...this was well-said by Knockernail...and it illustrates my assertion.

But to further it:

Every nation is developed and maintained with religion being an imperative building block of it's make-up. It is a timeless, organic adhesive that cannot, nor will not be eliminated. Forced elimination of course, is tyranny, and has proven to be unsuccessful. You cannot extinguish hearts and minds.

That being said, I adhere to the theory of cyclical history. There is a calculus to history. There is birth, growth, decline, and death...in every nation. It is of my opinion, for example, that the United States is in it's decline stage. When the culture is gradually disassociated from its foundation, the nation is soon extinguished.

I am not a religious person, but nevertheless those of us who are non-religious must understand its importance to a nation as a whole. I see much sullen animosity towards religion in this discussion. However, the minority must repect majority opinion. You see this in the news quite often, in which a small minority raise hell about something of a religious nature and an unneccessary controversy is established. This is non-sense in my opinion.

Here in the United States, we have the Establishment Clause to the Constitution. The only thing this says, is that A) there should be no State-established religion and B) Freedom of religion.

What the Establishment Clause does NOT grant, however, is freedom FROM religion. We have a vocal minority that cannot seem to grasp that.

Just my .02 cents...

...OB

I haven't so far felt like trying to deal with some of the very muddled thinking in many of the posts in this thread.

Of course we have a right to freedom from any one trying to impose their religion on the country, or any other person. Where did that line come from, the moral majority? It is certainly new to me.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the religion clauses.
This has been interpreted as the prohibition of 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress and 2) the preference of one religion over another or of religion over non-religious philosophies in general. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause, as historically understood, prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. The second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era.
Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868, the Supreme Court generally took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the Incorporation doctrine the Bill of Rights have been broadly applied to limit state and local government as well. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the majority of the court joined Justice David Souter's opinion, which stated that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." Critics of this interpretation argue that it effectively changes the Constitution in a way never contemplated by the founders. However, this is a controversial and evolving area of jurisprudence.

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Wikipedia and the courts seem to disagree with you Omaha that we don't have freedom FROM religion, some people don't seem to grasp THAT.
 
D

deleted26151

Guest
Im sure it depends what religion you are. Most people in Ireland are Roman Catholic and the church dies provide a lot of services to the state. For instance, the parish priest is automatically the manger of the primary school, little things like that.

In my opinion these should all be handled by the state but theyre not, so the reliogion would def be missed in Ireland anyway.Not sure about US though because the State seems more secualr over there so you guys could prob do without it
 

Corius

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Posts
669
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
163
Location
Michigan
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Whether you or I like it or not, in a free society any idea, whatever its source has to enter what is rightly called the "free marketplace of ideas" if it hopes to gain acceptance. If we are honest some of the best ideas for improving our society were pushed first by those who were motivated by their religious faith. One only has to recall the anti-slavery movement, the struggle for the rights of women, the public school movement, the civil rights movement, etc. --all had significant ant powerful support in the religious communities. One adds that some religious groups have supported some pretty bad movements such as prohibition, anti-evolutionary notions, opposition to gay rights, opposition to realistic medical practices and medicines: stem cell research, compassionate end of life care, birth control, the morning-after pill, etc.

The secular voices and movements are important to our society as well and it is often true that they are often allied with so-called religious persons in pushing needed reforms. Let's celebrate the gifts that they both offer for the common good. I am most comfortable when my friends on the religious side do not impute lack of integrity to those who come at the problems from the secular side and when my friends on the secular side are similarly respectful.

For those of you who are disgusted with the approach of this group or another, I would suggest that you seek out those persons and writers who are members of the group but are the voices of reason in the group. I know what the official position of the Roman Catholic Church is on many issues but I am also acquainted with those Roman Catholics who are busy within the church to help bring about needed changes.

In this society we've got to get along and to get along with each other we had better be in communication, honest communication with lots of real honest conversations sharing thoughts in seeking answers. And, that work requires the best efforts from all of us.
 

OmahaBeef

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Posts
999
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
OB, I must be just incredibly dense. Please explain to me the part B of the Establishment Clause (as in your post above), I remember the part about A, which actually says that Congress may pass no law supporting the establishment of a state religion (semantics, yes, but still a little different from what you posted) but I dont' recall any part of the Establishment Clause guaranteeing Freedom of religion... and if it does, and my freely chosen religion is agnosticism or atheism, is that freedom also guaranteed?


You are correct...part B was my error.

...OB
 

OmahaBeef

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Posts
999
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I haven't so far felt like trying to deal with some of the very muddled thinking in many of the posts in this thread.

Of course we have a right to freedom from any one trying to impose their religion on the country, or any other person. Where did that line come from, the moral majority? It is certainly new to me.


I am sorry that you feel my thinking is muddled. I do not practice law.

As I understand it:

We have a right for the government not to force or endorse any given religion upon us here in the US. What we do not have, is the freedom FROM private persons bestowing symbols of faith. Unless of course that faith breaks laws already in place, like drug consumption, violence, etc.

If an athiest/agnostic/whoever protests a nativity scene on display in a public park, they can take their grievances to a public court to contest whether or not it should be there. If that nativity scene is on somebody's lawn and does not break public ordinances, then its not really a valid complaint.

...OB
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I am sorry that you feel my thinking is muddled. I do not practice law.

As I understand it:

We have a right for the government not to force or endorse any given religion upon us here in the US. What we do not have, is the freedom FROM private persons bestowing symbols of faith. Unless of course that faith breaks laws already in place, like drug consumption, violence, etc.

If an athiest/agnostic/whoever protests a nativity scene on display in a public park, they can take their grievances to a public court to contest whether or not it should be there. If that nativity scene is on somebody's lawn and does not break public ordinances, then its not really a valid complaint.

...OB
I agree, OB (I think... if I understand what you are saying here). Regardless of the "majority" faith or lack thereof in a particular area, any religious displays in publicly funded areas are not appropriate. If one single penny of tax money funds it, religious displays violate first amendment. This would include public parks, court houses, and similar. An individual who owns or otherwise pays exclusively for the use of a property has every right to display (within reason) whatever religious display he chooses. When I say "within reason", I'm referring to things that would create a nuisance - if my gaudy christmas display on my property lights up your property like midday at midnight, you have a legitimate complaint.

But this is all off-topic. I do have to disagree with you that religion is necessary. Some people like it, some people need it; others do not. I don't think it takes a religious background to understand that it is wrong to assault or steal from another person.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
OB, you are right in regard to public vs. private property, but that's nothing near what you said earlier. We DO have freedom FROM religion, from our government. The Department of Family Values is in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights, which is why some of us feel such loathing for bush. Well, that's one among many of his offenses, but it's a good start.

The extent to which so many of our politicians are running on religious platforms is disgusting, religion should have no influence on who we choose for political offices, but few Americans even understand that this is an infringement on our rights. Of course, that is because THEIR religion is the one being shoved down our throats, and they can't understand why anyone would be offended! why wouldn't everyone appreciate being forced to be Christian?

Freedom of and from religion ONLY applies to our government. Sadly, our government is wiping its collective ass with our rights.

You are right that private citizens can do whatever they want on their own property, as long as it doesn't break the law. You don't owe anybody tolerance or consideration on your own property, that is for you to decide, and you alone. At least for now.
 

OmahaBeef

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Posts
999
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the religion clauses.
This has been interpreted as the prohibition of 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress and 2) the preference of one religion over another or of religion over non-religious philosophies in general. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause, as historically understood, prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. The second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era.
Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868, the Supreme Court generally took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the Incorporation doctrine the Bill of Rights have been broadly applied to limit state and local government as well. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the majority of the court joined Justice David Souter's opinion, which stated that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." Critics of this interpretation argue that it effectively changes the Constitution in a way never contemplated by the founders. However, this is a controversial and evolving area of jurisprudence.

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Wikipedia and the courts seem to disagree with you Omaha that we don't have freedom FROM religion, some people don't seem to grasp THAT.


See my post above (#57)...just talked to a lawyer friend of mine. The problem with the EC and the FEC is that the line drawn seems to ebb and flow regarding these matters, and is always open for debate.

One certainty is that we cannot change the interpretation here on LPSG. Maybe we all should grasp THAT.

...OB