right-wingers show us most dangerous BOOKS ever

[GottaBigOne]

Exactly DMW, religion does not have a monopoly on morality, it is very pleasing to know there are people out there that understand that.

 

[madame_zora]

And this is why I value the opinions of members like DMW and Freddie and some others here who believe that their religion is their personal choice and need not be the choice of others in order to be decent human beings.

The problem has been with presentation. I believe I have been able to read the passages of the Bible, particularly the NT and gain some credible insight into the life of Jesus and what his teachings meant at the time, and what I can apply to my life as a person living in my time. I realise that much was written in parable, as he even states it himself, so I see no lucid reason to take literally a story that was not written to be read as such. I also feel free to read with great discernment anything written by authors who are speaking on their own behalf and stating their opinions about what Christ wanted, they were human men and subject to flaw the same as you and I. Only the four gospels recount the actual life of Christ, and even those are not in complete harmonious agreement, which is normal for four men telling the story from their own point of view. I believe that far more of that is true of the OT, but not being as well versed in it, I have largely brushed it off as less relevant and more useful as historical backdrop. One has to be able to read the passages and then back up drastically to try to gain the message contained therein. For me, whether or not I believe that Mary was a virgin as we speak the word today (fwiw, I don't) does not detract from my admiration for the man known as Jesus who spent what would be the last few years of his life trying to bring understanding and peace to the world.

However, having been to many Pentecostal and fundamentalist churches, I can assure you that this is NOT the attitude taken by all! There are quite a few Christian churches in operation today who are in fact literalists, and it is with them and only them that I have a huge problem.

What a sad commentary on us as a race (human) that anytime a person of great character and decency tries to spread the word of peace, he most often comes to a tragic and violent end. To add insult to injury, we go on to warp the message they died for to fit our bloodthirsty and hateful desires. Sometimes I just feel filthy being a human being. Sometimes it seems there is just enough religion in the world to make men hate each other but not enough to make them love.

 

[13788]

chi-townboy: Madame, I also have that feeling sometimes. Why are humans so prone to war, conflict, and violence. Why can't we all just get along.

Why not participate in culture, music, and the rest of the fine arts? Are we really so preoccupied with dealing with our differences that violence and conflict are more important than peace...?

This is the main reason why I believe in God and practice spirituality. Hinduism, for me, provides me inner peace and tranquility. It gives me a metaphysical goal. It gives hope, meaning, and purpose.

 

[hung9mike]

Originally posted by jonb+Jun 1 2005, 07:44 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jonb &#064; Jun 1 2005, 07:44 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>I&#39;m surprised the Communist Manifesto got almost twice as many votes as Mein Kampf.

[post=317003]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b]

The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital should be 1-2 on the neocon list, I would think, since they advocate an ecomonic system-- which in turn dictates a political system-- that&#39;s well to the left of the neocon dream. (Someone who knows more about economic and political systems than I do could provide much better commentary on this topic.) I think they really ought to read Mein Kampf as a warning to themselves.<!--QuoteBegin-jonb@Jun 1 2005, 07:44 PM
And what, pray tell, is a communist physicist? What does ideology have to do with atoms?

[post=317003]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]Regrettably, plenty. The Cold War was all about the threat of splitting atoms in order to make an ideological point.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jun 4 2005, 08:55 PM
Sometimes it seems there is just enough religion in the world to make men hate each other but not enough to make them love.

[post=317857]Quoted post[/post]​

well, duh. that&#39;s because organized religion is about power politics and intellectual oppression. it ain&#39;t religion itself that makes people hate each other, it&#39;s the things they do with it. they&#39;d find other equally stupid excuses to hate each other if we took their organized religions away.

 

[steve319]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jun 2 2005, 11:06 PM
Evil is just so much easier and so much more fun.

Indeed&#33; As a matter of fact, that&#39;s our new recruitment motto&#33; :evilgrin:

 

[jonb]

Oh, I&#39;ve read about right-wingers now threatening to boycott the new Star Wars movie. Project much?

 

[ItsJustMe]

I&#39;m a bleeding heart liberal type and returned late Friday night from a week long business trip to Texas. This has nothing to do with the book list and isn&#39;t meant as a slam against all Texans but in the newspaper yesterday morning I read an article about how the governor was to sign anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage legislation inside a church. I was disgusted by the fact that sort of thing could take place but then remembered where I was and I&#39;m sure Dubya is foaming at the mouth with excitement over that occuring in his home state.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Jun 4 2005, 03:12 PM
Exactly DMW, religion does not have a monopoly on morality, it is very pleasing to know there are people out there that understand that.

[post=317854]Quoted post[/post]​

Religion is about a relationship to God. Morality is about living a life making the right decisions about what is right and what is wrong.

Ideally a very religious person would also be a very moral person. Sadly this is not always the case. In organized religion which is by definition there is an organization with members and those members may not be religious or moral. Or they may be both, or one and not the other.

It frustrates me that people don&#39;t see the difference. It hurts the good moral people who are members of a religious organization and it hurts good moral people who are not members of any religious organization.

The big question is what all encompasses good morals? We know character, honesty, and duty are elements of good morality. But what about love, compasion. generosity, even temperament and those kinds of things. Are they part of good morality as well? Or, are they attributes of good religion?

 

[GottaBigOne]

Originally posted by Freddie53+Jun 5 2005, 04:53 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Freddie53 &#064; Jun 5 2005, 04:53 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-GottaBigOne@Jun 4 2005, 03:12 PM
Exactly DMW, religion does not have a monopoly on morality, it is very pleasing to know there are people out there that understand that.

[post=317854]Quoted post[/post]​

Religion is about a relationship to God. Morality is about living a life making the right decisions about what is right and what is wrong.

Ideally a very religious person would also be a very moral person. Sadly this is not always the case. In organized religion which is by definition there is an organization with members and those members may not be religious or moral. Or they may be both, or one and not the other.

It frustrates me that people don&#39;t see the difference. It hurts the good moral people who are members of a religious organization and it hurts good moral people who are not members of any religious organization.

The big question is what all encompasses good morals? We know character, honesty, and duty are elements of good morality. But what about love, compasion. generosity, even temperament and those kinds of things. Are they part of good morality as well? Or, are they attributes of good religion?

[post=317953]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
i Wouldn&#39;t equate Love, and generosity with morality only because love and generosity aren&#39;t ALWAYS moral. One could love another and treat them like shit (some would argue that thats not love, but love is an emotion, just like anger, and can be felt regardless of action) And one could be generous with their hate as are Ku Klux Klan members, they are so generous it makes me sick.

 

[madame_zora]

I think the concept of goodness must be to some extent understood or the disection of the conversation could be unnerving. I think it would be well to understand that while both religion and morality offer paths to what is considered right and that these spheres CAN overlap, it is neither automatically so nor are they mutually exclusive. Also, it is necessary to understand that both fields are completely subjective, there being no right answer to what is right that is universal. Morally, one person may find it preferable to be a vegetarian and that would be right for him to follow that path, but that doesn&#39;t mean that those who eat meat are wrong. This is a concept that is often less understood by members of religous groups who are taught to believe that their path is the only one in the right. Sure, believe what is right for you and act on it, that&#39;s a beautiful thing, but once someone claims to KNOW that their path is the only one in the right, they are automatically wrong. No one has a monopoly on truth, righteousness, or morality. We all find our way based on what our individual searches reveal to us.

 

[headbang8]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@Jun 5 2005, 03:35 AM
Moral choices need not be religious choices.

[post=317829]Quoted post[/post]​

But if religious choices aren&#39;t moral choices, what good are they? What purpose do they serve?

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by headbang8+Jun 5 2005, 03:49 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(headbang8 &#064; Jun 5 2005, 03:49 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-DoubleMeatWhopper@Jun 5 2005, 03:35 AM
Moral choices need not be religious choices.

[post=317829]Quoted post[/post]​

But if religious choices aren&#39;t moral choices, what good are they? What purpose do they serve?

[post=318044]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
they allow people who would otherwise have no purpose or worth to their lives whatsoever to feel self-important. duh.

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by Dr Rock+Jun 5 2005, 06:46 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr Rock &#064; Jun 5 2005, 06:46 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by headbang8@Jun 5 2005, 03:49 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-DoubleMeatWhopper

@Jun 5 2005, 03:35 AM
Moral choices need not be religious choices.

[post=317829]Quoted post[/post]​

But if religious choices aren&#39;t moral choices, what good are they? What purpose do they serve?

[post=318044]Quoted post[/post]​

they allow people who would otherwise have no purpose or worth to their lives whatsoever to feel self-important. duh.

[post=318080]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]


Me love you long time.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by headbang8+Jun 5 2005, 03:49 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(headbang8 &#064; Jun 5 2005, 03:49 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-DoubleMeatWhopper@Jun 5 2005, 03:35 AM
Moral choices need not be religious choices.

[post=317829]Quoted post[/post]​

But if religious choices aren&#39;t moral choices, what good are they? What purpose do they serve?

[post=318044]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

I never said that religious choices shouldn&#39;t be moral, but that moral choices needn&#39;t be religious; there&#39;s a big difference. Religious choices should be moral, obviously. But Moral choices need not be religious choices does not mean Religious choices need not be moral choices. The word order is of paramount importance in such a statement.

 

[jonb]

I think we&#39;re talking about different things. Religious choices aren&#39;t necessarily ethical choices. (Carbonizing herbalists is hardly ethical.) Moral, yes. Ethical, no. Rather simply, a society may spin its own psychosis to make unethical choices moral.

Another way to think of it is the reality-based community vs. creating your own reality. Of course, no force of will can change reality.

 

[Chicago_Swimmer]

Some of the books I understand are on the list, conservative or not.

Marx, if only he read the ninth book (on tyrrany) of Plato&#39;s Republic he would have saved the 20th century so much misery.

Keynes&#39; Economic treatise is also another disaster (ie. see Europe).

But to have John Dewey&#39;s, Democray and Education on such a list strikes me as ignorant. They obviously never read the book. My daughter actually goes the the school he founded at the Univ. of Chicago. The problem with Dewey is that he has had no influence on American education, except the libraries that use the Dewey Decimal system.

Robert - The Lonely Moderate

 

[jonb]

Keynes was a disaster? Since when? Points to New Deal.

 

[Chicago_Swimmer]

Jnob,

I&#39;m referring to the fact that his economic theory was refuted by economic facts. The stagflation of the early 1970&#39;s America shows this. Nobody even teaches it anymore unless they are socialists in denial.

The New Deal made economic sense? At the time it did, but now with economic hindsight it only elongated the depression until WWII.

Still, the idea that Conservatives (or Liberals) would claim that John Dewey&#39;s educational philosophy that education in a democratic society should be based on developing critical thinkers is unnerving. Didn&#39;t they also include Mein Kempf? Good grief, what contradictions.

Robert - The Lonely Moderate

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by chicago1155@Jun 7 2005, 05:51 AM
Jnob,

I&#39;m referring to the fact that his economic theory was refuted by economic facts. The stagflation of the early 1970&#39;s America shows this. Nobody even teaches it anymore unless they are socialists in denial.

The New Deal made economic sense? At the time it did, but now with economic hindsight it only elongated the depression until WWII.

[post=318565]Quoted post[/post]​

The New Deal prevented the economy from getting worse. I&#39;m sorry, but most of us didn&#39;t feel like resorting to the economic tactics of the fascists in Europe was worth it. The evidence is, the New Deal worked exactly as Keynes predicted, even during the war.

The stagflation of the 70s could&#39;ve been prevented by not depending so much on oil. In most American cities, auto makers and oil companies actually bought up the trolleys and trains and then destroyed the cables and tracks, respectively.

I take it you&#39;re a supply-sider. Too bad supply-side economics is perpetual motion.