GMC makes some good points.
Religion served a purpose for the collective group of humans in a way.
We have an instinctive need to belong to "The Tribe"
This is a vestige of our primate beginnings, I think.
One can learn a lot by looking at primate behavior. (Chimps, Baboons, and Gorillas, in particular, but even lemurs seem to have similar pattern. Other mammals like wolves exhibit this, also.)
We belong to the family/clan/tribe/herd and are identified as a part of said group. We need to identify with a group.
This is the thing that all groups feed on. Military, gangs, churches, etc.
Before the bronze age it was simple. You belonged to your family clan. As city-state evolved and groups of clans grew together, and intermixed there needed to be more identity markers.
Religion later became a "clan marker"
Now we can see this behavior in sports fandom, music fandom, school alumni, pet clubs, hobby clubs, and the like.
Any meeting of people starts with conversation to determine common ground. (Which clan(s) we belong to, and do we have common ground?)
Once some common ground is established, (we are in a "clan" together) the business at hand can be dealt with.
In some circles, "what church are you with?" still holds sway and gets you past that clan negotiation quickly.
As we develop different clan markers, the religion marker has become less of a factor.
american inquisition?
american inquisition?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
american inquisition?
Since dictionaries give multiple definitions and one is not dependent on another it would seem that 2 and 3 fit. At least that is the standard interpretation of looking in a dictionary. Each definition stands on its own.
Shalom
Mate:-6
Shalom
Mate:-6
american inquisition?
Ted;1275588 wrote: Since dictionaries give multiple definitions and one is not dependent on another it would seem that 2 and 3 fit. At least that is the standard interpretation of looking in a dictionary. Each definition stands on its own.
Shalom
Mate:-6
It dilutes the value of "religion" to define the people who reject all religion as being part of a competing religion.
It's like saying that people who reject all modern science are actually practicing a form of science. Or to define people who have no scientific beliefs as being scientists. No scientist would want to give the label to people they thought were absolute quacks, because it would devalue it.
Religion is unique in that it often wants to call anything and everything "religion," including science and atheism. What does that really say about the community's perception of itself? To attack something by comparing it to oneself?
Shalom
Mate:-6
It dilutes the value of "religion" to define the people who reject all religion as being part of a competing religion.
It's like saying that people who reject all modern science are actually practicing a form of science. Or to define people who have no scientific beliefs as being scientists. No scientist would want to give the label to people they thought were absolute quacks, because it would devalue it.
Religion is unique in that it often wants to call anything and everything "religion," including science and atheism. What does that really say about the community's perception of itself? To attack something by comparing it to oneself?
american inquisition?
yarrg:-6
That like most things works both ways.
Shalom
Ted:-6
That like most things works both ways.
Shalom
Ted:-6
american inquisition?
Atheism is a powerful individualistic phenomenon, and especially confusing for the religious group minded person. Up to now there has never been any individual element that has been any threat to the religious group. How could it be, the sheer numbers of the group should have the ability to take on any lone hostel "enemy." Groups work to either absorb (convert) individuals or simply ignore them. Individualism can only be a viable and relevant 'within-group' function because it has the force of the group behind it. Any individual entity to carry the magnitude of a threat that atheism seems to pose to religion must therefore be another group. 'Among-group' competition is perceived as the only possible answer, so the religious group-ist is attempting to first recognize and define its competitor as a group, and that's a complete waste of time.
It all must be very confusing for people who serve religion in any within-group function.
What the fundamentalist religious person must come to understand is the species is now moving on past religious practices and dogma. But I'm not sure most of the more hard core members can get that concept as this could very well be hard-wiring and they may therefore be forced to stand by and watch their way of existing become increasingly unpopular and eventually irrelevant as a powerful entity. A difficult spectacle for them to witness indeed. Can they adapt - is choice an option for them? Some can (I did - but I obviously wasn't hard wired like that), however, the behaviour of many seem to suggest not, but only your hairdresser/manicurist knows for sure.
It all must be very confusing for people who serve religion in any within-group function.
What the fundamentalist religious person must come to understand is the species is now moving on past religious practices and dogma. But I'm not sure most of the more hard core members can get that concept as this could very well be hard-wiring and they may therefore be forced to stand by and watch their way of existing become increasingly unpopular and eventually irrelevant as a powerful entity. A difficult spectacle for them to witness indeed. Can they adapt - is choice an option for them? Some can (I did - but I obviously wasn't hard wired like that), however, the behaviour of many seem to suggest not, but only your hairdresser/manicurist knows for sure
.“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
american inquisition?
Raven;1274738 wrote: America hasnt lived up to the ideals it was first founded upon
I wouldn't worry a single feather about that, Raven, if I were you. Not even the teeny-weeniest one. After all, in the above sentence you're only talking about America in the abstract. And abstract things can't do anything for themselves. Not a darned thing. What you should really be concerned about, Raven, is not whether America has lived up to its ideals but whether you in your featherless form, you as a person, you as an American citizen, have lived up to your nation's ideals.
I think that the set of ideals which are embodied in the American Constitution are extremely admirable. If I were an American I would be very proud of my nation's Constitution because it is a truly remarkable achievement. One of humanity's greatest achievements, I would say. This is why even non-Americans like myself can feel proud about the American Constitution albeit in an indirect way. For it allows us to say to ourselves: 'The human race is not entirely worthless and absurd. Look at what the Americans have achieved in the form of their Constitution.'
One of the ideals embodied in the Constitution holds that it is the right of every American to express their opinion without fear of consequence. Therefore, it is very sad and disappointing to hear that many Americans who are of the opinion that there is no God (or gods) are afraid to declare this publicly because they run the risk of being stigmatised and disadvantaged by doing so. All Americans, be they theists or atheists in persuasion, should be alarmed by this situation. More than this - they should be outraged by it. For any attempt to undermine or suppress the right of atheists to openly express their non-belief in gods of whatever flavour is a harm committed against not just atheists but theists as well. Thomas Paine, the English-born revolutionary who greatly influenced the shaping of the American Constitution, makes this crystal clear in his dedication to the American people in The Age Of Reason. He writes:
'To my fellow citizens of the United States of America: You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.'
Paine's view is echoed by John Stuart Mill in his essay On Liberty. Mill argued that every human being is made poorer by the suppression of an opinion because:
'If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.'
Perhaps the most famous words which champion the individual's right to freedom of expression are the following (wrongly attributed to Voltaire, by the way):
'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'
Although these inspiring words never sprang from Voltaire's mouth or pen (they are the invention of one of his biographers) it is safe to assume that they would have been readily embraced by the Frenchman given what we know about his life and character.
The basis of every human freedom lies in the free exercise of thought and reason. This is why throughout the ages all human beings who have recognised this truth have done their utmost in word and deed to safeguard and promote the individual's right to freedom of opinion: while fools, tyrants, theocrats and those afflicted with a bad conscience have done precisely the opposite.
I wouldn't worry a single feather about that, Raven, if I were you. Not even the teeny-weeniest one. After all, in the above sentence you're only talking about America in the abstract. And abstract things can't do anything for themselves. Not a darned thing. What you should really be concerned about, Raven, is not whether America has lived up to its ideals but whether you in your featherless form, you as a person, you as an American citizen, have lived up to your nation's ideals.
I think that the set of ideals which are embodied in the American Constitution are extremely admirable. If I were an American I would be very proud of my nation's Constitution because it is a truly remarkable achievement. One of humanity's greatest achievements, I would say. This is why even non-Americans like myself can feel proud about the American Constitution albeit in an indirect way. For it allows us to say to ourselves: 'The human race is not entirely worthless and absurd. Look at what the Americans have achieved in the form of their Constitution.'
One of the ideals embodied in the Constitution holds that it is the right of every American to express their opinion without fear of consequence. Therefore, it is very sad and disappointing to hear that many Americans who are of the opinion that there is no God (or gods) are afraid to declare this publicly because they run the risk of being stigmatised and disadvantaged by doing so. All Americans, be they theists or atheists in persuasion, should be alarmed by this situation. More than this - they should be outraged by it. For any attempt to undermine or suppress the right of atheists to openly express their non-belief in gods of whatever flavour is a harm committed against not just atheists but theists as well. Thomas Paine, the English-born revolutionary who greatly influenced the shaping of the American Constitution, makes this crystal clear in his dedication to the American people in The Age Of Reason. He writes:
'To my fellow citizens of the United States of America: You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.'
Paine's view is echoed by John Stuart Mill in his essay On Liberty. Mill argued that every human being is made poorer by the suppression of an opinion because:
'If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.'
Perhaps the most famous words which champion the individual's right to freedom of expression are the following (wrongly attributed to Voltaire, by the way):
'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'
Although these inspiring words never sprang from Voltaire's mouth or pen (they are the invention of one of his biographers) it is safe to assume that they would have been readily embraced by the Frenchman given what we know about his life and character.
The basis of every human freedom lies in the free exercise of thought and reason. This is why throughout the ages all human beings who have recognised this truth have done their utmost in word and deed to safeguard and promote the individual's right to freedom of opinion: while fools, tyrants, theocrats and those afflicted with a bad conscience have done precisely the opposite.
american inquisition?
I've been trolled by better. No worries. Actually it doesnt even make sense. He certainly has no idea of what the America today stands for. Ideals are just ideals unless you put action to them. Nathan Hale would be regretting giving up that one life, if he were alive today. 
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
american inquisition?
What scares me about the US is the utter stupidity of the republicans. They keep trying the same thing, over and over, to solve a problem. Imagine the futility of trying the same thing over and over and expecting to get a different outcome. They oppose national health care. The so called Christian right seems to have failed to learn the lesson of the "Good Samaritan". It does seem that for them it's all about "me" and to hell with my neighbour.
Can a right winged dictatorship be far behind?
Shalom
Ted:-6
Can a right winged dictatorship be far behind?
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
american inquisition?
Raven;1274738 wrote: America started off as THE place to be for freedom from religious persecution. Having said that, it, in turn, burned free thinking individuals at the stake along with persecuting anyone who didnt believe as they did. It actually turned into exactly what it was running from. I AM an American.Well, so am I, so I gotta ask, what on earth are you talking about?
When did the USA ever burn anyone at the stake? I musta missed history class that day, or just wasn't paying attention.
Or did you mean figuratively? If so, I'd still like some examples.
When did the USA ever burn anyone at the stake? I musta missed history class that day, or just wasn't paying attention.
Or did you mean figuratively? If so, I'd still like some examples.
american inquisition?
Salem rings a bell in my head.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
american inquisition?
Ted;1304469 wrote: Salem rings a bell in my head.
Shalom
Ted:-6No doubt, but that was not the USA, those were colonial times, abuses like that were one reason the Revolution took place.
19 witches, 14 women and 5 men, all hanged. No burnings.
Shalom
Ted:-6No doubt, but that was not the USA, those were colonial times, abuses like that were one reason the Revolution took place.
19 witches, 14 women and 5 men, all hanged. No burnings.
american inquisition?
How about your civil rights movement?
YouTube - Strange Fruit - Reconstruction
Burning someone alive is just one kind of terror tactic there are countless other examples where other methods are used.
YouTube - Strange Fruit - Reconstruction
Burning someone alive is just one kind of terror tactic there are countless other examples where other methods are used.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
american inquisition?
gmc;1304539 wrote: How about your civil rights movement?
YouTube - Strange Fruit - Reconstruction
Burning someone alive is just one kind of terror tactic there are countless other examples where other methods are used.Horrible! But not really part of the civil rights movement, which had to do with racial equality under law.
The reply was to the charge that the USA - as a nation - burned free-thinking individuals and persecuted those whose religion differed from that of the majority.
I can't recall any instances of that in American history, but of course, such atrocities still take place regularly in Muslim countries.
YouTube - Strange Fruit - Reconstruction
Burning someone alive is just one kind of terror tactic there are countless other examples where other methods are used.Horrible! But not really part of the civil rights movement, which had to do with racial equality under law.
The reply was to the charge that the USA - as a nation - burned free-thinking individuals and persecuted those whose religion differed from that of the majority.
I can't recall any instances of that in American history, but of course, such atrocities still take place regularly in Muslim countries.
american inquisition?
Mark Aspam;1304554 wrote: Horrible! But not really part of the civil rights movement, which had to do with racial equality under law.
The reply was to the charge that the USA - as a nation - burned free-thinking individuals and persecuted those whose religion differed from that of the majority.
I can't recall any instances of that in American history, but of course, such atrocities still take place regularly in Muslim countries.
Depends how you define a freethinker. It's also someone who questions or rejects accepted opinions - especially, though not exclusively religious ones. Since religion was used to justify racism rejecting the consensus, if you were white, blacks were inferior would make you a free thinker in some places I would have thought. After all they didn't just lynch black people did they?
Still, I can't speak for raven so I'll let her take you up on it if she wants to.
You surprise me though that you see no connection between lynching and the civil rights movement. Says a lot they would have their pictures taken next to the bodies of people they had just murdered. Must have been terrifying - all these good christians hanging people that were daft enough to think all god's children and equal before the law meant them as well.
I made the original post because as an outsider it looks as if america is on the knife edge of a vicious religious revival with freethinkers, in this case atheists as targets, but as usual it will be any that don't conform and do what they are told. I was curious to see what the response would be.
The reply was to the charge that the USA - as a nation - burned free-thinking individuals and persecuted those whose religion differed from that of the majority.
I can't recall any instances of that in American history, but of course, such atrocities still take place regularly in Muslim countries.
Depends how you define a freethinker. It's also someone who questions or rejects accepted opinions - especially, though not exclusively religious ones. Since religion was used to justify racism rejecting the consensus, if you were white, blacks were inferior would make you a free thinker in some places I would have thought. After all they didn't just lynch black people did they?
Still, I can't speak for raven so I'll let her take you up on it if she wants to.
You surprise me though that you see no connection between lynching and the civil rights movement. Says a lot they would have their pictures taken next to the bodies of people they had just murdered. Must have been terrifying - all these good christians hanging people that were daft enough to think all god's children and equal before the law meant them as well.
I made the original post because as an outsider it looks as if america is on the knife edge of a vicious religious revival with freethinkers, in this case atheists as targets, but as usual it will be any that don't conform and do what they are told. I was curious to see what the response would be.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
american inquisition?
gmc;1304561 wrote: Depends how you define a freethinker. It's also someone who questions or rejects accepted opinions - especially, though not exclusively religious ones. Since religion was used to justify racism rejecting the consensus, if you were white, blacks were inferior would make you a free thinker in some places I would have thought. After all they didn't just lynch black people did they?
Still, I can't speak for raven so I'll let her take you up on it if she wants to.
You surprise me though that you see no connection between lynching and the civil rights movement. Says a lot they would have their pictures taken next to the bodies of people they had just murdered. Must have been terrifying - all these good christians hanging people that were daft enough to think all god's children and equal before the law meant them as well.
I made the original post because as an outsider it looks as if america is on the knife edge of a vicious religious revival with freethinkers, in this case atheists as targets, but as usual it will be any that don't conform and do what they are told. I was curious to see what the response would be.I was replying specifically to the raven's false claim that America, by which I assumed she meant the government, burned free thinkers at the stake.
With your original post I take very little exception but to say that I don't see evidence of the "knife edge" religious revival you mention. Maybe you could give some examples. There have always been religious revivalists, their influence on the country as a whole has been minimal.
The laws in question are obviously unconstitutional and unenforcable; still, an avowed atheist has very little chance of being elected to any office loftier than dogcatcher in the USA. Americans can vote for or against a candidate for whatever reason they wish, including foolish reasons.
Still, I can't speak for raven so I'll let her take you up on it if she wants to.
You surprise me though that you see no connection between lynching and the civil rights movement. Says a lot they would have their pictures taken next to the bodies of people they had just murdered. Must have been terrifying - all these good christians hanging people that were daft enough to think all god's children and equal before the law meant them as well.
I made the original post because as an outsider it looks as if america is on the knife edge of a vicious religious revival with freethinkers, in this case atheists as targets, but as usual it will be any that don't conform and do what they are told. I was curious to see what the response would be.I was replying specifically to the raven's false claim that America, by which I assumed she meant the government, burned free thinkers at the stake.
With your original post I take very little exception but to say that I don't see evidence of the "knife edge" religious revival you mention. Maybe you could give some examples. There have always been religious revivalists, their influence on the country as a whole has been minimal.
The laws in question are obviously unconstitutional and unenforcable; still, an avowed atheist has very little chance of being elected to any office loftier than dogcatcher in the USA. Americans can vote for or against a candidate for whatever reason they wish, including foolish reasons.
american inquisition?
Mark Aspam;1304567 wrote: I was replying specifically to the raven's false claim that America, by which I assumed she meant the government, burned free thinkers at the stake.
With your original post I take very little exception but to say that I don't see evidence of the "knife edge" religious revival you mention. Maybe you could give some examples. There have always been religious revivalists, their influence on the country as a whole has been minimal.
The laws in question are obviously unconstitutional and unenforcable; still, an avowed atheist has very little chance of being elected to any office loftier than dogcatcher in the USA. Americans can vote for or against a candidate for whatever reason they wish, including foolish reasons.
As an outsider it's the extremes that get publicity so your right wing militias and other nuttier elements are what get noticed. Pat Robertson, for instance came to our attention when he decided tinky winky was gay and documentaries like jesus camp got an airing here. I came across the report in the original post and just found it incredible that not being religious was viewed in such a manner in this day and age. It's religious oppression if these people get their way and I just find it hard to credit they can do something like this.
With your original post I take very little exception but to say that I don't see evidence of the "knife edge" religious revival you mention. Maybe you could give some examples. There have always been religious revivalists, their influence on the country as a whole has been minimal.
The laws in question are obviously unconstitutional and unenforcable; still, an avowed atheist has very little chance of being elected to any office loftier than dogcatcher in the USA. Americans can vote for or against a candidate for whatever reason they wish, including foolish reasons.
As an outsider it's the extremes that get publicity so your right wing militias and other nuttier elements are what get noticed. Pat Robertson, for instance came to our attention when he decided tinky winky was gay and documentaries like jesus camp got an airing here. I came across the report in the original post and just found it incredible that not being religious was viewed in such a manner in this day and age. It's religious oppression if these people get their way and I just find it hard to credit they can do something like this.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
american inquisition?
gmc;1304572 wrote: 1. As an outsider it's the extremes that get publicity so your right wing militias and other nuttier elements are what get noticed.
2. Pat Robertson, for instance came to our attention when he decided tinky winky was gay and documentaries like jesus camp got an airing here.
3. I came across the report in the original post and just found it incredible that not being religious was viewed in such a manner in this day and age.
4. It's religious oppression if these people get their way and I just find it hard to credit they can do something like this.1. Correct. I've never been to Scotland tho' my grandmother was of Scottish ancestry, but I've been to England and the place is crawling with extremists, the Animal Righters being the silliest and most annoying. They set up their little stands on street corners and start screaming obscenities at you if you express the least disagreement with them. Scary. So it's hardly an American phenomenon.
2. Pat Robertson is considered a joke by nearly everyone except his adoring followers. I've never heard of 'jesus camp'. And by the way, Pat once attempted to run for president and failed miserably.
3. Well, you make it sound as if religious faith is somehow outdated. Most of us have some sort of belief in a higher power. And there are militant atheists just as there are militant fundamentalists of various religions. The sleezeball Dawkins comes to mind, he's as offensive as any religious fanatic.
4. Here you may have lost me. Do something like what? To use a baseball analogy, before you can score a run you have to reach first base, and in order to reach first base you have to get the first thousandth of an inch down the first base line. I don't believe that the religious extremists have done that nor show any signs of doing so. To me as an American they are kind of an embarrassment but that's about the extent of it. Of course, there are also constitutional guarantees that would prevent that.
2. Pat Robertson, for instance came to our attention when he decided tinky winky was gay and documentaries like jesus camp got an airing here.
3. I came across the report in the original post and just found it incredible that not being religious was viewed in such a manner in this day and age.
4. It's religious oppression if these people get their way and I just find it hard to credit they can do something like this.1. Correct. I've never been to Scotland tho' my grandmother was of Scottish ancestry, but I've been to England and the place is crawling with extremists, the Animal Righters being the silliest and most annoying. They set up their little stands on street corners and start screaming obscenities at you if you express the least disagreement with them. Scary. So it's hardly an American phenomenon.
2. Pat Robertson is considered a joke by nearly everyone except his adoring followers. I've never heard of 'jesus camp'. And by the way, Pat once attempted to run for president and failed miserably.
3. Well, you make it sound as if religious faith is somehow outdated. Most of us have some sort of belief in a higher power. And there are militant atheists just as there are militant fundamentalists of various religions. The sleezeball Dawkins comes to mind, he's as offensive as any religious fanatic.
4. Here you may have lost me. Do something like what? To use a baseball analogy, before you can score a run you have to reach first base, and in order to reach first base you have to get the first thousandth of an inch down the first base line. I don't believe that the religious extremists have done that nor show any signs of doing so. To me as an American they are kind of an embarrassment but that's about the extent of it. Of course, there are also constitutional guarantees that would prevent that.
american inquisition?
Mark Aspam;1304574 wrote: The sleezeball Dawkins comes to mind, he's as offensive as any religious fanatic.What has Dawkins said thats got you so displeased with him? His positions have created a following of rather aggressive young people and seems a bit too militant for my liking. Though perhaps he feels someone has to step into the political and religious abyss of the subject of atheism, and why not him. Thats just a guess on my part.
Jesus Camp is a particularly sad side of Christianity in the U.S.. I think it qualifies as abuse.
Jesus Camp is a particularly sad side of Christianity in the U.S.. I think it qualifies as abuse.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,â€
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
american inquisition?
Ahso!;1304577 wrote: 1. What has Dawkins said thats got you so displeased with him? His positions have created a following of rather aggressive young people and seems a bit too militant for my liking. Though perhaps he feels someone has to step into the political and religious abyss of the subject of atheism, and why not him. Thats just a guess on my part.
2. Jesus Camp is a particularly sad side of Christianity in the U.S.. I think it qualifies as abuse.1. His entire approach seems to be that anyone who could possibly believe in anything spiritual has to be some kind of moron.
2. I lived in Europe for most of the previous decade and that is probably why I had never heard of it. I briefly visited the Wikipedia page and will return when I have time. The discussion page is every bit as interesting as the article itself.
Americans, by and large, do not like extremists. I agree that the people in the article are weird, but I can't imagine any scenario by which they would develop any political power.
Entire books were written - and sold - by dominionists in the late 1990's claiming that the entire world as we know it would come crashing down at midnight on December 31, 1999 because computers would not be able to handle the millenium change, and when that happened, they were poised to take over. I guess now, ten years later, they're still poised. Well, maybe in 2999.
2. Jesus Camp is a particularly sad side of Christianity in the U.S.. I think it qualifies as abuse.1. His entire approach seems to be that anyone who could possibly believe in anything spiritual has to be some kind of moron.
2. I lived in Europe for most of the previous decade and that is probably why I had never heard of it. I briefly visited the Wikipedia page and will return when I have time. The discussion page is every bit as interesting as the article itself.
Americans, by and large, do not like extremists. I agree that the people in the article are weird, but I can't imagine any scenario by which they would develop any political power.
Entire books were written - and sold - by dominionists in the late 1990's claiming that the entire world as we know it would come crashing down at midnight on December 31, 1999 because computers would not be able to handle the millenium change, and when that happened, they were poised to take over. I guess now, ten years later, they're still poised. Well, maybe in 2999.
american inquisition?
Mark Aspam;1304574 wrote: 1. Correct. I've never been to Scotland tho' my grandmother was of Scottish ancestry, but I've been to England and the place is crawling with extremists, the Animal Righters being the silliest and most annoying. They set up their little stands on street corners and start screaming obscenities at you if you express the least disagreement with them. Scary. So it's hardly an American phenomenon.
2. Pat Robertson is considered a joke by nearly everyone except his adoring followers. I've never heard of 'jesus camp'. And by the way, Pat once attempted to run for president and failed miserably.
3. Well, you make it sound as if religious faith is somehow outdated. Most of us have some sort of belief in a higher power. And there are militant atheists just as there are militant fundamentalists of various religions. The sleezeball Dawkins comes to mind, he's as offensive as any religious fanatic.
4. Here you may have lost me. Do something like what? To use a baseball analogy, before you can score a run you have to reach first base, and in order to reach first base you have to get the first thousandth of an inch down the first base line. I don't believe that the religious extremists have done that nor show any signs of doing so. To me as an American they are kind of an embarrassment but that's about the extent of it. Of course, there are also constitutional guarantees that would prevent that.
1 The religious fundamentalist extremism is a peculiarly american phenomenon, although having said that we have sectarianism whose capacity for violence is quite shocking - northern ireland for instance. I suppose the IRA/UDA and your christian militia are equally depressing.
2 watch a little
YouTube - Brain Washing ( Jesus Camp ''Highlights'' )
2. I lived in Europe for most of the previous decade and that is probably why I had never heard of it. I briefly visited the Wikipedia page and will return when I have time. The discussion page is every bit as interesting as the article itself.
The harry potter comment does rather suggest she has difficulty telling whether a character is fictional or real.
3 not outdated perhaps but we live in a secular society free of religious oppression. Religious faith is literally irrational - otherwise it wouldn't be faith would it? I find dawkins style of writing and speaking rather boring but sleazy? Compared to catholic priests he's a long way to go.
4 what they were going to try and do was get the atheist forced out of office. I don't know if they succeeded or not it was just that they seemed to think they had every right to do so, which I find amazing.
Americans, by and large, do not like extremists. I agree that the people in the article are weird, but I can't imagine any scenario by which they would develop any political power.
The religious right seem to be a very influential voting block that can make or break a presidential candidate. Although how accurate that is I'm not sure.
In the UK by contrast playing the I am religious card is asking for trouble. Tony Blair waited till he was out of office before announcing his conversion to Catholicism. He was honest enough, for one, to admit he waited because he knew it would become an issue.
2. Pat Robertson is considered a joke by nearly everyone except his adoring followers. I've never heard of 'jesus camp'. And by the way, Pat once attempted to run for president and failed miserably.
3. Well, you make it sound as if religious faith is somehow outdated. Most of us have some sort of belief in a higher power. And there are militant atheists just as there are militant fundamentalists of various religions. The sleezeball Dawkins comes to mind, he's as offensive as any religious fanatic.
4. Here you may have lost me. Do something like what? To use a baseball analogy, before you can score a run you have to reach first base, and in order to reach first base you have to get the first thousandth of an inch down the first base line. I don't believe that the religious extremists have done that nor show any signs of doing so. To me as an American they are kind of an embarrassment but that's about the extent of it. Of course, there are also constitutional guarantees that would prevent that.
1 The religious fundamentalist extremism is a peculiarly american phenomenon, although having said that we have sectarianism whose capacity for violence is quite shocking - northern ireland for instance. I suppose the IRA/UDA and your christian militia are equally depressing.
2 watch a little
YouTube - Brain Washing ( Jesus Camp ''Highlights'' )
2. I lived in Europe for most of the previous decade and that is probably why I had never heard of it. I briefly visited the Wikipedia page and will return when I have time. The discussion page is every bit as interesting as the article itself.
The harry potter comment does rather suggest she has difficulty telling whether a character is fictional or real.
3 not outdated perhaps but we live in a secular society free of religious oppression. Religious faith is literally irrational - otherwise it wouldn't be faith would it? I find dawkins style of writing and speaking rather boring but sleazy? Compared to catholic priests he's a long way to go.
4 what they were going to try and do was get the atheist forced out of office. I don't know if they succeeded or not it was just that they seemed to think they had every right to do so, which I find amazing.
Americans, by and large, do not like extremists. I agree that the people in the article are weird, but I can't imagine any scenario by which they would develop any political power.
The religious right seem to be a very influential voting block that can make or break a presidential candidate. Although how accurate that is I'm not sure.
In the UK by contrast playing the I am religious card is asking for trouble. Tony Blair waited till he was out of office before announcing his conversion to Catholicism. He was honest enough, for one, to admit he waited because he knew it would become an issue.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
american inquisition?
Well, just three brief comments.gmc;1304596 wrote: The religious fundamentalist extremism is a peculiarly american phenomenon,Been to Saudi Arabia lately? Iran?Compared to catholic priests he's a long way to go.Well, I've been a Catholic all my life and have known dozens of priests as both ministers and educators. On a personal level, I liked some of them better than others. I can't recall a single one whom I would describe as sleazy.The religious right seem to be a very influential voting block that can make or break a presidential candidate. Although how accurate that is I'm not sure. As I mentioned earlier, any American has the right to vote or not to vote for any candidate for any reason at all. They didn't seem very effective in defeating Bill Clinton or Barak Obama. George W. Bush ran against weak opponents.
There won't be a broad base of support for any religious fanatic running for president anytime in the USA's foreseeable future.
There won't be a broad base of support for any religious fanatic running for president anytime in the USA's foreseeable future.
american inquisition?
Lon;1274973 wrote: As a American and life long atheist (Secular Humanist) I am not at all surprised. It has only been since I retired that I have come out of the closet. To have done so before I retired and finished raising a family, would have had serious negative business & social implications. It also means that I had to be a hypocrite for many years which I hated. Now, I can let it all hang out cause I don't give a s--t.
Can i relate to this bigtime! I have been more vocal about my lack of religion and I've experienced ramifications, of varying degrees, aimed my way by the religious, in the past.
IF only i played along? Where would i be now?
Was my stance brave or stupid? Depends on ones perspective i suppose.
Now I wear a cross. It isn't intended as a Xian cross but represents it's original meaning. It's an ancient pagan design that symbolizes the rhythms of nature.
It is a con in a way but who's being conned is a matter of perspective too.
I've noticed i get less trouble from people since I've been wearing it AND i don't openly discuss my lack of religion anymore either.:p
I guess i won't give a shyte either when i retire. If I ever do!?
Can i relate to this bigtime! I have been more vocal about my lack of religion and I've experienced ramifications, of varying degrees, aimed my way by the religious, in the past.
IF only i played along? Where would i be now?
Was my stance brave or stupid? Depends on ones perspective i suppose.
Now I wear a cross. It isn't intended as a Xian cross but represents it's original meaning. It's an ancient pagan design that symbolizes the rhythms of nature.
It is a con in a way but who's being conned is a matter of perspective too.
I've noticed i get less trouble from people since I've been wearing it AND i don't openly discuss my lack of religion anymore either.:p
I guess i won't give a shyte either when i retire. If I ever do!?
american inquisition?
posted by mark aspam
Been to Saudi Arabia lately? Iran?
Good point. I was just thinking of the contrast between the US and UK.
Then again they are both countries that had no mechanisms for political dissent so protest becomes extreme. Wahibism was actively encouraged by the saudi royal family. Iran had a secular left wing government overthrown in favour of a monarchy the ayatollah became a focus for protest movements. Left alone it would probably become secular in a couple of generations. Most advances societies end up secularising.
posted by mark aspam
Well, I've been a Catholic all my life and have known dozens of priests as both ministers and educators. On a personal level, I liked some of them better than others. I can't recall a single one whom I would describe as sleazy.
Maybe you just weren't cute enough.
Why do you think dawkins is sleazy?
As I mentioned earlier, any American has the right to vote or not to vote for any candidate for any reason at all. They didn't seem very effective in defeating Bill Clinton or Barak Obama. George W. Bush ran against weak opponents.
Another good point I hadn't thought of it that way.
Been to Saudi Arabia lately? Iran?
Good point. I was just thinking of the contrast between the US and UK.
Then again they are both countries that had no mechanisms for political dissent so protest becomes extreme. Wahibism was actively encouraged by the saudi royal family. Iran had a secular left wing government overthrown in favour of a monarchy the ayatollah became a focus for protest movements. Left alone it would probably become secular in a couple of generations. Most advances societies end up secularising.
posted by mark aspam
Well, I've been a Catholic all my life and have known dozens of priests as both ministers and educators. On a personal level, I liked some of them better than others. I can't recall a single one whom I would describe as sleazy.
Maybe you just weren't cute enough.
Why do you think dawkins is sleazy?As I mentioned earlier, any American has the right to vote or not to vote for any candidate for any reason at all. They didn't seem very effective in defeating Bill Clinton or Barak Obama. George W. Bush ran against weak opponents.
Another good point I hadn't thought of it that way.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
american inquisition?
gmc;1304660 wrote: 1. I was just thinking of the contrast between the US and UK.... Most advances [advanced?] societies end up secularising.
2. Maybe you just weren't cute enough.
3. Why do you think dawkins is sleazy?1. Hmm...I'm not sure I follow you here. The USA has been secular from its inception. The UK is an 'establishment' country, with an official state religion, and the monarch the defender of the faith.
So when do you imagine that the UK will secularize?
2. The primary victims of the current scandals are, of course, those who were mistreated.
The secondary victims are all the devoted priests who have to endure comments like yours above. Talk about a cheap shot!
But both these topics are somewhat off the theme of the thread. I will gladly discuss them elsewhere.
3. I think I answered that previously. His derisive manner, which he shares with Chris Hitchens and some others. One senses self-loathing buried somewhere under the sarcasm.
2. Maybe you just weren't cute enough.
3. Why do you think dawkins is sleazy?1. Hmm...I'm not sure I follow you here. The USA has been secular from its inception. The UK is an 'establishment' country, with an official state religion, and the monarch the defender of the faith.
So when do you imagine that the UK will secularize?
2. The primary victims of the current scandals are, of course, those who were mistreated.
The secondary victims are all the devoted priests who have to endure comments like yours above. Talk about a cheap shot!
But both these topics are somewhat off the theme of the thread. I will gladly discuss them elsewhere.
3. I think I answered that previously. His derisive manner, which he shares with Chris Hitchens and some others. One senses self-loathing buried somewhere under the sarcasm.
american inquisition?
Mark Aspam;1304695 wrote: 1. Hmm...I'm not sure I follow you here. The USA has been secular from its inception. The UK is an 'establishment' country, with an official state religion, and the monarch the defender of the faith.
So when do you imagine that the UK will secularize?
2. The primary victims of the current scandals are, of course, those who were mistreated.
The secondary victims are all the devoted priests who have to endure comments like yours above. Talk about a cheap shot!
But both these topics are somewhat off the theme of the thread. I will gladly discuss them elsewhere.
3. I think I answered that previously. His derisive manner, which he shares with Chris Hitchens and some others. One senses self-loathing buried somewhere under the sarcasm.
You do make some very good points and you're right about the head of state etc. The queen is a figurehead, the PM appoints the bishops, which is why Tony blair converting to catholicism while in office would have sparked a major crisis but most people in the UK are not religious. Most aren't monarchists either come to that and the church of scotland view the C of E as closet catholics anyway and she occasionally gets invited to address the general assembly. However we went from absolute catholic monarchy, divine rights of kings and all that to liberal democracy via an awful lot of bloodshed and even military dictatorship by fundamentalist christians. The framers of your constitution built on the ideals of the age of enlightenment, unfortunately you also got some of the crazier religious sects as well as ideas from us. Your pilgrim fathers were a classic case in point. They wanted freedom FROM persecution but were quite happy not to extend that freedom to others.
Our society as a whole and that of europe is far more secular than the US. people might say chrisrtian if asked but don't actually attend church. it's the same in europe whereas in the states religion seems to play a significant part in your politics.
Religion in the United Kingdom: Diversity, Trends and Decline
Less than half of the British people believe in a God, yet about 72% told the 2001 census that they were Christian, and 66% of the population have no actual connection to any religion or church, despite what they tend to write down on official forms. Between 1979 and 2005, half of all Christians stopped going to church on a Sunday. Religion in Britain has suffered an immense decline since the 1950s, and all indicators show a continued secularisation of British society in line with other European countries such as France.
So when do you imagine that the UK will secularize?
2. The primary victims of the current scandals are, of course, those who were mistreated.
The secondary victims are all the devoted priests who have to endure comments like yours above. Talk about a cheap shot!
But both these topics are somewhat off the theme of the thread. I will gladly discuss them elsewhere.
3. I think I answered that previously. His derisive manner, which he shares with Chris Hitchens and some others. One senses self-loathing buried somewhere under the sarcasm.
You do make some very good points and you're right about the head of state etc. The queen is a figurehead, the PM appoints the bishops, which is why Tony blair converting to catholicism while in office would have sparked a major crisis but most people in the UK are not religious. Most aren't monarchists either come to that and the church of scotland view the C of E as closet catholics anyway and she occasionally gets invited to address the general assembly. However we went from absolute catholic monarchy, divine rights of kings and all that to liberal democracy via an awful lot of bloodshed and even military dictatorship by fundamentalist christians. The framers of your constitution built on the ideals of the age of enlightenment, unfortunately you also got some of the crazier religious sects as well as ideas from us. Your pilgrim fathers were a classic case in point. They wanted freedom FROM persecution but were quite happy not to extend that freedom to others.
Our society as a whole and that of europe is far more secular than the US. people might say chrisrtian if asked but don't actually attend church. it's the same in europe whereas in the states religion seems to play a significant part in your politics.
Religion in the United Kingdom: Diversity, Trends and Decline
Less than half of the British people believe in a God, yet about 72% told the 2001 census that they were Christian, and 66% of the population have no actual connection to any religion or church, despite what they tend to write down on official forms. Between 1979 and 2005, half of all Christians stopped going to church on a Sunday. Religion in Britain has suffered an immense decline since the 1950s, and all indicators show a continued secularisation of British society in line with other European countries such as France.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
american inquisition?
gmc;1305127 wrote: Your pilgrim fathers were a classic case in point. They wanted freedom FROM persecution but were quite happy not to extend that freedom to others. Well, they might not have wanted to extend it to others WITHIN THEIR OWN COMMUNITY. That's an important distinction.
Americans normally refer to the 'Founding Fathers", not 'pilgrim fathers'. It is true that many of early immigrants came to this land to escape religious persecution, but that was nearly two CENTURIES before the founding of our nation.
The USA's founders were mainly Anglicans. Unitarians and Freemasons and our constitution was written as religiously neutral, respecting freedom of religious expression but prohibiting any establishment of religion by government.
So religious fanatics here don't bother me much, they are, as I stated earlier, mainly an embarrassment to the rest of us.
Your stats regarding religion in the UK surprise me, and I will check out the link as soon as possible. Had it been a survey of mainland Europe I would have been less surprised, having lived in Germany for nearly a decade.
Americans normally refer to the 'Founding Fathers", not 'pilgrim fathers'. It is true that many of early immigrants came to this land to escape religious persecution, but that was nearly two CENTURIES before the founding of our nation.
The USA's founders were mainly Anglicans. Unitarians and Freemasons and our constitution was written as religiously neutral, respecting freedom of religious expression but prohibiting any establishment of religion by government.
So religious fanatics here don't bother me much, they are, as I stated earlier, mainly an embarrassment to the rest of us.
Your stats regarding religion in the UK surprise me, and I will check out the link as soon as possible. Had it been a survey of mainland Europe I would have been less surprised, having lived in Germany for nearly a decade.
american inquisition?
mark aspam
Americans normally refer to the 'Founding Fathers", not 'pilgrim fathers'. It is true that many of early immigrants came to this land to escape religious persecution, but that was nearly two CENTURIES before the founding of our nation.
Glad you said that That's always puzzled me, a lot of your countrymen refer to the founding fathers as the framers of the constitution. I always thought there were two distinct groups pilgrim fathers and founding fathers.
Americans normally refer to the 'Founding Fathers", not 'pilgrim fathers'. It is true that many of early immigrants came to this land to escape religious persecution, but that was nearly two CENTURIES before the founding of our nation.
Glad you said that That's always puzzled me, a lot of your countrymen refer to the founding fathers as the framers of the constitution. I always thought there were two distinct groups pilgrim fathers and founding fathers.
american inquisition?
gmc;1274706 wrote: I was curious to see what people thought of this. Posted link in another thread and got little response so thought I would try again. I'm not an american and this doesn't affect me at all but it's not intended as anti-american. I just find it incredible that in any modern western society something like this is actually an issue. You expect t in the middle east or somewhere like that.
YouTube - Atheists Banned From Public Office in 7 State Constitutions
It seems you have those that want to bring back the inquisition and are getting away with it except this time it seems to be a protestant one. Mind you when you look at the history of all the religious wars in europe it's a moot point which was the most viscious.
One needs to bear in mind that there was more than religion bound up with Protestantism- there was politics, too, and the responsibility for that cannot be laid at the feet of the apostles, who had nothing to do with politics. A Protestant is not necessarily a Christian- indeed, few were at the Reformation, particularly those who went to war with very earthly, mercenary motives. And arguably, not much has changed since then. The responsibility for that lies with those who made 'Christianity' state religion, forcing the hands of those who wanted to change the status quo. Christianity, state religion? A sort of contradiction in terms, for anyone who actually reads the New Testament, which of course, in the Middle Ages, very few could- and those who did were those who stood to gain from the general state of ignorance.
The USA bears more than a little comparison with medieval Europe. Most of the early settlers were Calvinists. Calvin was a Catholic, a lawyer, and even historians have called his conversion into doubt, and not for religious reasons. But there are religious reasons to doubt Calvin and Calvinism. Calvinists killed Anabaptists, for religious reasons. Calvin retained infant baptism, that destroys the notion of a converted church at a stroke. He had a religious doubter, Servetus, executed, an action that completely repels ordinary people, let alone those who follow Jesus because he says to turn the other cheek. Certainly Calvinism was used by rich people to justify their riches and allow poor people to be kept poor. So Calvinism, just like medieval Catholicism, provided a veneer of apparent Christianity to allow preservation of great differences in wealth. Calvin used his devious lawyer's mind to re-present the old religion, re-formed in Christian guise.
This explains the adverse treatment of atheists in the USA. It's not as though the religious people of the USA disapprove of atheism- like medieval inquisitors, they just think it's not a very prudent belief to state.
YouTube - Atheists Banned From Public Office in 7 State Constitutions
It seems you have those that want to bring back the inquisition and are getting away with it except this time it seems to be a protestant one. Mind you when you look at the history of all the religious wars in europe it's a moot point which was the most viscious.
One needs to bear in mind that there was more than religion bound up with Protestantism- there was politics, too, and the responsibility for that cannot be laid at the feet of the apostles, who had nothing to do with politics. A Protestant is not necessarily a Christian- indeed, few were at the Reformation, particularly those who went to war with very earthly, mercenary motives. And arguably, not much has changed since then. The responsibility for that lies with those who made 'Christianity' state religion, forcing the hands of those who wanted to change the status quo. Christianity, state religion? A sort of contradiction in terms, for anyone who actually reads the New Testament, which of course, in the Middle Ages, very few could- and those who did were those who stood to gain from the general state of ignorance.
The USA bears more than a little comparison with medieval Europe. Most of the early settlers were Calvinists. Calvin was a Catholic, a lawyer, and even historians have called his conversion into doubt, and not for religious reasons. But there are religious reasons to doubt Calvin and Calvinism. Calvinists killed Anabaptists, for religious reasons. Calvin retained infant baptism, that destroys the notion of a converted church at a stroke. He had a religious doubter, Servetus, executed, an action that completely repels ordinary people, let alone those who follow Jesus because he says to turn the other cheek. Certainly Calvinism was used by rich people to justify their riches and allow poor people to be kept poor. So Calvinism, just like medieval Catholicism, provided a veneer of apparent Christianity to allow preservation of great differences in wealth. Calvin used his devious lawyer's mind to re-present the old religion, re-formed in Christian guise.
This explains the adverse treatment of atheists in the USA. It's not as though the religious people of the USA disapprove of atheism- like medieval inquisitors, they just think it's not a very prudent belief to state.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
american inquisition?
xyz;1321819 wrote: 1. A Protestant is not necessarily a Christian- indeed, few were at the Reformation, particularly those who went to war with very earthly, mercenary motives. And arguably, not much has changed since then. The responsibility for that lies with those who made 'Christianity' state religion, forcing the hands of those who wanted to change the status quo. Christianity, state religion? A sort of contradiction in terms, for anyone who actually reads the New Testament, which of course, in the Middle Ages, very few could- and those who did were those who stood to gain from the general state of ignorance.
2. The USA bears more than a little comparison with medieval Europe. Most of the early settlers were Calvinists.
3. Calvin was a Catholic, a lawyer, and even historians have called his conversion into doubt, and not for religious reasons.
4. But there are religious reasons to doubt Calvin and Calvinism.
5. This explains the adverse treatment of atheists in the USA. I'm not sure of poster xyz's point here.
1. Anyone know what s/he's talking about? Which denominations of Protestantism are non-Christian? I don't know of any. And to which war is the poster referring? And to which country with Christianity its state religion is s/he referring? The thread is supposed to be about the USA, which has never had a state religion.
2. Here the poster makes the same mistake as some of the earlier contributors. Many of the early settlers were indeed Calvinists, they had little to do with the founding of the USA, and if some of them did, they certainly did not found it on Calvinist principles.
3. Calvin was born a Catholic and rejected Catholicism at an early age. Prior to the Reformation, there wasn't any other kind of Christian he could have been. And who are the historians who called his conversion into doubt, and for what reasons?
4. Indeed, it contradicts Christ's entire ministry. But that is beyond the scope of the thread.
5. I know lots of atheists, I don't know a single one who claims adverse treatment in the USA. I would suppose that an atheist would feel more at home in a secular country than in an "establishment" country with a state religion, but as I noted in an earlier post, Americans can vote for or not vote for whomever they wish, for whatever reasons they wish, even if the reasons are trivial, bigotted, or just plain silly.
2. The USA bears more than a little comparison with medieval Europe. Most of the early settlers were Calvinists.
3. Calvin was a Catholic, a lawyer, and even historians have called his conversion into doubt, and not for religious reasons.
4. But there are religious reasons to doubt Calvin and Calvinism.
5. This explains the adverse treatment of atheists in the USA. I'm not sure of poster xyz's point here.
1. Anyone know what s/he's talking about? Which denominations of Protestantism are non-Christian? I don't know of any. And to which war is the poster referring? And to which country with Christianity its state religion is s/he referring? The thread is supposed to be about the USA, which has never had a state religion.
2. Here the poster makes the same mistake as some of the earlier contributors. Many of the early settlers were indeed Calvinists, they had little to do with the founding of the USA, and if some of them did, they certainly did not found it on Calvinist principles.
3. Calvin was born a Catholic and rejected Catholicism at an early age. Prior to the Reformation, there wasn't any other kind of Christian he could have been. And who are the historians who called his conversion into doubt, and for what reasons?
4. Indeed, it contradicts Christ's entire ministry. But that is beyond the scope of the thread.
5. I know lots of atheists, I don't know a single one who claims adverse treatment in the USA. I would suppose that an atheist would feel more at home in a secular country than in an "establishment" country with a state religion, but as I noted in an earlier post, Americans can vote for or not vote for whomever they wish, for whatever reasons they wish, even if the reasons are trivial, bigotted, or just plain silly.