Is Religion no longer needed?

[OmahaBeef]

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.

DofFV vs. BoR: That may be. I don't know enough about it to comment.

Bush: Your preaching to the choir. Bush or no Bush, religion is here to stay. Sorry.

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?

You have a right not to vote for them. But for many Americans, faith is a factor in who they cast a vote for. Many care, many do not. If they try to intitute policy based upon their religion, then we certainly have a grievance. If Mitt Romney were elected, for example, I seriously doubt he will force the Book of Mormon to be read by each high school student. He is not making his faith the thesis of his campaign.

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

You'll get no argument from me there. Amen.

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.

Ok your ahead of me...let me catch up. My responses are in bold.

...OB

 

[DC_DEEP]

<...>
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.

That's just lawyer-speak. They really don't have any interest in accurate interpretation of the law, actually the contrary is true. Most lawyers prefer to argue in circles, so that no firm decision can be reached. Otherwise, they would be out of a job. The EC and the FEC really do not NEED interpretation.

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

...OB

We can, though, examine our own attitudes and beliefs, and those of others. If we do so with an open mind, we can get closer to "the truth." Once you do that, we can make our minds known to legislators, let them know what must be done, and what may not be done.

 

[Love-it]

Religion causes more derisiveness than the next 10 (or so) reasons put together.

 

[OmahaBeef]

That's just lawyer-speak. They really don't have any interest in accurate interpretation of the law, actually the contrary is true. Most lawyers prefer to argue in circles, so that no firm decision can be reached. Otherwise, they would be out of a job. The EC and the FEC really do not NEED interpretation.We can, though, examine our own attitudes and beliefs, and those of others. If we do so with an open mind, we can get closer to "the truth." Once you do that, we can make our minds known to legislators, let them know what must be done, and what may not be done.

I couldn't agree with you more

...OB

 

[Principessa]

:smile: As long as I am single there will be a need for prayer. :smile:

Single Woman's Prayer




Now I lay me down to sleep,
I pray for a man who's not a creep.

One who's handsome, smart and strong,
Who's not afraid to admit when he is wrong.

One who thinks before he speaks.
When he promises to call, he doesn't wait six weeks.

I pray that he is gainfully employed,
Won't lose his cool when he's annoyed.

Pulls out my chair and opens my door,
Massages my back and begs to do more.

Oh send me a man who will make love to my mind.
Know what to say when I ask "How fat is my behind?"

One who'll make love till my body's a' itchin'
He brings ME a sandwich too, when he goes to the kitchen.

I pray that this man will love me to no end,
And never compare me to my best friend.

Thank you in advance and now I'll just wait,
For I know you will send him before it's too late.

Amen
- Author Unknown
​

 

[Wrat]

There are a lot of things that cannot be explained in this world but superstition will never make them any easier to understand.
Now as then.

 

[Lordpendragon]

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.

Sorry Beefy, that's bullshit. (apologies also for failing to resist the pun :smile: )

There is a common misconception that religion is timeless. It is not - have a look at MZ's Nicea thread and you will see how humans developed religion.

I have had trouble understanding the meaning of spirituality. You may be shocked to learn that it comes from pre-christian practices of communing with spirits - the dead and the unseen spirits of nature. This is an animist and shamanistic practice.

Take a look at Shamanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shamanism was not a religion. A shaman had special powers to commune with spirits and the phenomena of the natural world that scared people and they didn't understand. People have rituals, but it would be anachronistic to consider them religious.

The christian priest took over the special powers of the shaman, he could turn the bread and wine into the flesh and blood etc etc. However the christians and other monotheists developed the religion that we know today. It is a latin word and it means order. That is what modern religion was about, order, structure and control, part of the state apparatus.

Your constitution specifically bars it from being part of the State aparatus, effectively saying that organised religion is not crucial to the workings of a modern state - and I completely agree.

 

[B_classic151]

I'd believe in the easter bunny before I'd believe in that jesus stuff.

 

[Full_Phil]

---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.

I believe that those "few" who I know have decided to keep their places of worship as quiet loving refuges rather than the battlegrounds they most likely would become if their congregations stood up publicly to the intolerance which is mainstream Christianity. I would think any tolerant person should agree with you in basic principle, however. With the schism that is occuring in the Episcopalian Church today, you can side with those in that church who stand for the acceptance of gays and women in the hierarchy as an example of something a person can do. I haven't been in an Episcopal church for a long time, though, so I don't know where this new tolerance fits into the entire boring and self-engrandizing liturgy that I left.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I'd believe in the easter bunny before I'd believe in that jesus stuff.

That is some of the best irony I have seen in years!

 

[madame_zora]

That is some of the best irony I have seen in years!

Man, that got right past me. Good catch.

 

[madame_zora]

People have rituals, but it would be anachronistic to consider them religious.

I'll let him answer for himself, but I assumed OB was saying "religion" in the sense that people have always used stories to explain the things they didn't understand.

re: "religion"

It is a latin word and it means order. That is what modern religion was about, order, structure and control, part of the state apparatus.

Is that true? The word "religion" in latin, or the root means "order"? I didn't know that. Suddenly, everything makes a lot more sense.

In AA, we tell people that if you don't believe in God, think of it as Good Orderly Direction. Might not be so far off after all.

Your constitution specifically bars it from being part of the State aparatus, effectively saying that organised religion is not crucial to the workings of a modern state - and I completely agree.

I agree too. I've read a lot about what was going on during those deliberations thought, and the Deists had their hands quite full sticking to their guns on that point. While the pilgrims had come to America for religious freedom, they were only interested in their own religious freedom, not any others who might come along. They won the argument, with a few compromises, but bushco has pretty effectively erradicated that success by wholly ignoring it.

 

[Knockernail]

I have had trouble understanding the meaning of spirituality. You may be shocked to learn that it comes from pre-christian practices of communing with spirits - the dead and the unseen spirits of nature. This is an animist and shamanistic practice.


The christian priest took over the special powers of the shaman, he could turn the bread and wine into the flesh and blood etc etc. However the christians and other monotheists developed the religion that we know today. It is a latin word and it means order. That is what modern religion was about, order, structure and control, part of the state apparatus.

Let me type some thoughts with regard to religion. I have not read the Madame´s thread. I have tried but my limited english doesn´t allowe me to do it. And i´m really sorry.

- Christianism, as big as it is, might be considered as a sect derived from judaism. Some jews decided to accept the coming of the messiah, the most didn´t. For several reasons christianism grew a lot more than judaism.

- It could be considered that the birthplace of the great western monotheists religions is in the current Irak. Babilonia and, above all, Sumer, developed their own religions. Some passages are commons. The Flood appears in the babilonian one. The Trinity (somehow present in several religions) is symbolized, in the sumerian religion, by three gods: An, En-lil and En-ki, equivalents to God, Jesus and the Saint Spirit. Sumer is still, nowadays, a great unknown because of the few writings they left.
[Sumerians were an ancient people from Mesopotamia, which with Akkads, raised one of the first known civilizations, around the 25th century before Christ. Their total and definitive falling came in the 21th century, with the settlement of the babilonic and asirian civilizations (semitics)]

- The primarial and basic purpose of religions, any of them, has ever been the control of cohabitation. This makes impossible to break the triad religion-morals-laws. Andthis makes necessary the survival of a common line which rules our behaviour in community. We can agree or disagree with the concepts of a concrete religion, but we can´t deny its need.

- Religions are not immovables. They can be changed and adapted to current times. In fact they do, but slower than morals, and much slower than laws.

- It´s true that lots of facts, inexplicables in the past, got already an explanation. This should involve the fall of religions. Should. Perhaps Mani had the answer. But it was another religion after all.


I don´t believe in any sort of gods (but myself, of course :biggrin1: ), though i find this subject fascinating. All human beings are nurtured holding some beliefs. And not we all are bad. Perhaps the existence of religions is not the problem, maybe some supporters of those religions are the problem.

 

[kalipygian]

The literal latin meaning of the word 'religion' is to be 'bound again', cognates ligament and ligature. The early christian use, 'a Religious' was an individual who committed to submit to the rules of an order, such as those of St. Basil or St. Benedict. Members of monastic orders are still called the 'regular' clergy, as in regulated, parish priests who are responsible for 'the cure of souls' are the 'secular' clergy.
The romans referred to early christians as a 'superstitio', literally 'that which is built on top', that is outside of respected established practice.

 

[OmahaBeef]

I'll let him answer for himself, but I assumed OB was saying "religion" in the sense that people have always used stories to explain the things they didn't understand.

Feel free my dear...that was exactly my point.

I have enjoyed the dialogue folks. I am done with this thread.

...OB

 

[Male Bonding etc]

I am currently reading Kingdom Coming by Michelle Goldberg. Quite an eye opener, even for someone who thinks his eyes are pretty wide open.

 

[Full_Phil]

I am currently reading Kingdom Coming by Michelle Goldberg. Quite an eye opener, even for someone who thinks his eyes are pretty wide open.

Can you give us a synopsis?

 

[madame_zora]

On a related note, this issue may be coming to the foreground soon. As some of us have suggested, the legality of the Department of Family Values is being challenged.



By RYAN J. FOLEY


MADISON, Wis. Feb 22, 2007 (AP)— Annie Laurie Gaylor speaks with a soft voice, but her message catches attention: Keep God out of government.

Gaylor has helped transform the Freedom From Religion Foundation from obscurity into the nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics, with a fast-rising membership and increasing legal clout.

Next week, the group started by Gaylor and her mother in the 1970s to take on the religious right will fight its most high-profile battle when the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on its lawsuit against President Bush's faith-based initiative.

The court will decide whether taxpayers can sue over federal funding that the foundation believes promotes religion. It could be a major ruling for groups that fight to keep church and state separate.

"What's at stake is the right to challenge the establishment of religion by the government," Gaylor said.

ABC News: Atheist Group Takes on Bush Initiative

 

[DC_DEEP]

On a related note, this issue may be coming to the foreground soon. As some of us have suggested, the legality of the Department of Family Values is being challenged.



By RYAN J. FOLEY


MADISON, Wis. Feb 22, 2007 (AP)— Annie Laurie Gaylor speaks with a soft voice, but her message catches attention: Keep God out of government.

Gaylor has helped transform the Freedom From Religion Foundation from obscurity into the nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics, with a fast-rising membership and increasing legal clout.

Next week, the group started by Gaylor and her mother in the 1970s to take on the religious right will fight its most high-profile battle when the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on its lawsuit against President Bush's faith-based initiative.

The court will decide whether taxpayers can sue over federal funding that the foundation believes promotes religion. It could be a major ruling for groups that fight to keep church and state separate.

"What's at stake is the right to challenge the establishment of religion by the government," Gaylor said.

ABC News: Atheist Group Takes on Bush Initiative

I wish her the best, and I can only hope that the USSC will make the correct decision on this one... but with the current bench, and in light of most of their opinions in the last 5 years, I won't hold my breath. Our supreme court is in sad shape, and they have allowed partisan politics and shady under-the-table deals shape their policies, rather than the US Constitution.

 

[madame_zora]

I wish her the best, and I can only hope that the USSC will make the correct decision on this one... but with the current bench, and in light of most of their opinions in the last 5 years, I won't hold my breath. Our supreme court is in sad shape, and they have allowed partisan politics and shady under-the-table deals shape their policies, rather than the US Constitution.

Yes, the Constitution has few defenders thesedays. The only thing that makes me hopeful at all is that I think it's possible that the social regression of the last few years may lead to a new age of enlightenment at some point. The problem is, I know how slowly social issues move, and I hate the thought that the rest of my lifetime could be wasted on a very bleak time.