GameBanshee Forums

You're right as ever VonDondu, they are indeed terrorists, and I think it's a very safe bet that they would all be Palin supporters!

rmemmett84 wrote:<snip>
Give me a break. You want to see hypocrisy. Better yet you expect to see hypocracy...so guess what you do.

Ahh - yes. Who could argue with that line of thought.

rmemmett84 wrote:While I tend to agree that the REPUBLICAN PARTY does draw a considerable amount of support from the religious right I think you may be oversimplifying this. Conservatism is a train of thought or moral compass if you will (I don't know that these are the right terms but I think you will get my meaning) and the actions of a few who claim to be conservatives is not derivative of the whole movement. If this was the case could we not make the generalization that are liberals were "terroristic" because of the actions of a few zealots who blow up abortion clinics?

Huh? "Liberals" blowing up abortion clinics?

You mean "religious zealots" blowing up abortion clinics. Oh...and murdering physicians. That would be religious right-wingers doing that stuff, not liberals. Might want to get your facts straight.

(pssst...a little hint for you. "Liberals" are the godless heathens people like Palin want to destroy for being against apple pie and the nuclear family. Oh...and for supporting the legality of abortion)

Other issues:

No, I'm not oversimplifying a single thing. Summing it up in a nutshell: yes. Simplifying it: not by a long shot. The road has been long, secretive, and scandalous. The Republican Party has become the mouthpiece and organ for the Neo-Con movement and their bedfellows, the Religious Right. Like I said, some intelligence and integrity sheds alot of light on the subject. Courage required.

VonDondu wrote:Are you suggesting that the terrorists who blow up abortion clinics are liberals? They are terrorists by definition (a fact that the Bush administration always overlooks), but I always thought they were conservatives.

Nononono! Terrorism isn't terrorism when it's for the "right cause." That's why you can get locked up in Guantamo for being "anti-american" while zealots who publicly claims pro-choice people must burn in hell and AIDS is Gawd's revenge can run free to do their thing. Freedom & Democracy and all that...

Moonbiter wrote:Nononono! Terrorism isn't terrorism when it's for the "right cause." That's why you can get locked up in Guantamo for being "anti-american" while zealots who publicly claims pro-choice people must burn in hell and AIDS is Gawd's revenge can run free to do their thing. Freedom & Democracy and all that...

It really is simple. It amazes me the lengths some people go to justify what has been done...and what is being proposed by the likes of John McCain...in the name of "freedom and democracy." What they don't see is reality: the religious right's role in forging a theological impetus for the new, twisted version of Manifest Destinty espoused by the neo-cons. America is supposed to be the "world leader" in leading the entire unwashed world to freedom and democracy the way white, wealthy Protestant Christian men with expensive military hardware envision it.

In any case....someone like Palin is merely a tool of the movement to manipulate opinions and capture more hearts and minds. Let us all place our hand over our hearts while thousands die worldwide and our freedoms get taken away.

I found this nugget on Freethink, and I think it sums it all up pretty nicely:

Anti-Intellectualism Is Destroying America
Written by Jack Carlson on 25 August 2008 – 7:36 pm

“It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.” Barack Obama finally said it.

Though a successful political and electoral strategy, the Right’s stand against intelligence has steered them far off course, leaving them — and us — unable to deal successfully with the complex and dynamic circumstances we face as a nation and a society.

American 15-year-olds rank 24th out of 29 countries in math literacy, and their parents are as likely to believe in flying saucers as in evolution; roughly 30 to 40 percent believe in each. Their president believes “the jury is still out” on evolution.

Steve Colbert interviewed Georgia Rep. Lynn Westmoreland on “The Colbert Report.” Westmoreland co-sponsored a bill that would require the display of the Ten Commandments in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, but, when asked, couldn’t actually list the commandments.

This stuff would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous.

In the 2004 election, nearly 70 percent of Bush supporters believed the United States had “clear evidence” that Saddam Hussein was working closely with al Qaeda; a third believed weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq; and more than a third that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion, according to the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. The political right and allied culture warriors actively ignore evidence and encourage misinformation. To motivate their followers, they label intelligent and informed as “elite,” implying that ignorance is somehow both valuable and under attack.

In my opinion, anti-intellectualism is one of the world’s most serious problems, these days.

What is it? It’s the belief that what is good are the “simple people”, the “common people”, who are supposedly more honest and “real” than so-called “ivory tower” intellectuals.

It’s also the belief that thinking and learning are trouble, that they lead people to unhappiness, sinfulness, asking too many questions, and such.

It’s geeks, or more intelligent students, being called “brainy” or “nerds” and harassed by classmates. It’s science being seen as a waste of time and money. It’s a political candidate winning an election because he successfully depicted his opponent as an “egghead”. Incidentally, it’s likely that one of the reasons America currently has one of its worst presidents ever is that, by being less educated and articulate than Gore or Kerry, he appeared “more in touch” with the common man (of course, one should then wonder if you really want the village idiot in charge of the most powerful nation in the world… but I digress.)

There are several sources of anti-intellectualism. Religion is an obvious one, of course, since being intelligent and learning makes one less likely to accept arguments from authority, and to question unproven assertions. An intelligent, learned man has no need for religion - therefore, we don’t want any intelligent, learned men (to paraphrase The Fountainhead’s Elllsworth Toohey).

Besides “normal” religion, there’s also the usual mystical, new age thinking, according to which the mind is “flawed” and imperfect, incapable of perceiving any real “revelations”, which you supposedly can only grasp with “your heart” or “your spirit”. The mind is human, and therefore imperfect, while the heart/spirit are filled with “the cosmos’s love” or any other generic, meaningless terms.

Another reason is populism, the belief that the honest, hard working “masses” are oppressed by the corrupt, privileged “elites”. While they certainly are, sometimes (in dictatorships, for instance), populism is wrong because of its belief of “the lower, the better”, and its worship of ordinariness. Populism, like most forms of collectivism, punishes people for ability and for success - therefore, it promotes mediocrity and sameness. And a populist certainly hates and feels threatened by anyone with more “brains” or education.

Dictatorships (communism, fascism, etc.) always strongly promote anti-intellectualism, for mostly the same reasons as religion does: an intelligent, educated person is much more likely to question, and to see “what’s rotten”. The “unwashed masses” are much easier to keep in line. Higher education is seen as “dangerous” and “subversive”.

An intellectual isn’t necessarily someone more intelligent or with more knowledge than the norm. It just means that the person highly values the mind, thinking, and the pursuit of knowledge. And it’s frightening, to me, how few intellectuals (by that definition) I personally know. Anti-intellectuals (people who deride the mind, who pride themselves on not thinking, on not using their reason), on the other hand, are everywhere.

During this presidential campaign we’ve heard the terms “elite” and “elitist” used as pejorative terms. I agree with Bill Maher when he said,

Say it loud: I’m elite and proud! The right-wing crusade to demonize elites has paid off. Now the country’s run by incompetents who make mediocrity a job requirement and recruit from Pat Robertson’s law school. New rule: Now that liberals have taken back the word liberal, they also have to take back the word “elite.” By now you’ve heard the constant right-wing attacks on the “elite,” or as it’s otherwise known, “hating.” They’ve had it up to their red necks with the “elite media.” The “liberal elite.” Who may or may not be part of the “Washington elite.” A subset of the “East Coast elite.” Which is influenced by “the Hollywood elite.” So basically, unless you’re a ****kicker from Kansas, you’re with the terrorists.

I don’t get it: In other fields — outside of government — elite is a good thing, like an elite fighting force. Tiger Woods is an elite golfer. If I need brain surgery, I’d like an elite doctor. But in politics, elite is bad (Source)

It’s not just politics, though. As the influence of fundamental religion grows worldwide, it is becoming perceived as honorable, honest, down-to-Earth to be ignorant and bad-mouth intellectualism. A 16 year old kid makes the news dropping out of high school to play Guitar Hero. Education and the desire to know are no longer priorities.

Do you value the intellect? Does the negative connotation of “elite” and “intellectual” bother you?

In response to moonbiters essay (which is critical of religion) I would like to make the case that religion isn't actually the enemy. The enemy is ignorance.

Tony Blair made a nice speach on religion and globalization. While not everyone including myself may agree on all his actions it is a well thought out speach. My Lama, Lama Shenpen from Wales, was actually moved by it and posted it on our (Sangha's) forum.

Tony Blair 'Faith and Globalisation' lecture - The Office Of Tony Blair

Claudius wrote:...I would like to make the case that religion isn't actually the enemy. The enemy is ignorance.

Sadly, ignorance is the means by which religions have controlled entire nations of humanity over the course of history. It has been through the oppression of knowledge and learning that these organizations have maintained a stranglehold over populations, shaping the course of history and fueling bloody wars that stem from antiquity and persist to the present day.

Religion, by its nature, is a self-contained answer system that cannot tolerate questions that challenge its authority. Such things endanger the supremacy of the thought-system, permitting that greatest of evils to occur: the exercise of human free will. Control is lost, and with loss of control goes the loss of the fear that kept humans in bondage to the system in the first place.

A good example in microcosm (relatively speaking, on a global scale) goes on here in the United States, where Christian religious groups work to suppress the inclusion of books and scientific theories from public classrooms. Faced with dismal failure on the front of their battle against science being taught to American children, they seek to sugarcoat their religious dogma in pseudo-science in an attempt to gain a foothold in their mission to proselytize the American public, thus fulfilling the "Great Commission." They prove that once given an inch, they seek a mile.

The shield they hide behind? Simple: Faith. Theirs is a Faith. Exempt from laws of taxation and to a certain degree ethics, they conduct their activities these days holding the hands of the Republican party. The current President has gone to great lengths to legitimize and fund their existence. The code word for this sort of government support is "faith-based alternative." In more enlightened times this would be recognized for what it truly is: state-funded religion.

However, thanks to widespread ignorance amongst folks who profess to be religious, it continues on unabated with no end in sight. McCain is a puppet of the Republican party, and his running mate Palin is the required nod to the religious zealots who provide fodder for the Republican ranks. Ignorance and religion are bedfellows.

EDIT: I think a brief expose of the McCain campaign's recent love affair with the religious right is in order. There should be no illusions as to what these folks - and thus John McCain - stand for.

First, let's look at John McCain in the recent past. Here's what he had to say about Jerry Falwell, a religious figure (now deceased) here in the United States:

"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right" - John McCain, 2000

In May of 2006, John McCain addressed Falwell's Liberty University. He also accepted the support of Mr. Falwell. They "agreed to disagree" on certain issues.

Perhaps the most controversial religious courtship for McCain is his relationship with John Hagee, founder and pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. I cannot - and will not - list the myraid of odious things concerning that man here, since an entire thread could be devoted to that alone. I suggest googling his name to see for yourself. McCain's embracing of this man is symbolic of "conservative" America's love of the religious right. They share the same bed.

I'll close this with a statement from John Hagee concerning Hurricane Katrina:

"All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that."

Amen.

But that is your assumption that a necessary component of religion is ignorance. In Buddhism the Da Lai Lama (who is not the leader of buddhism actually...there is none) has stated that if direct experience shows that buddhism is incorrect then buddhism has to change. In Christianity I don't believe that all Christians disregard science. At least not from my experience with scientists the majority of whom were Christian! It is only some individuals choice. And their background may have something to do with it. Indeed many non-religious people know nothing of science.

Each person is an individual. And their religion is not the only mandala that is operating and dictating their actions. For example someone who kills an abortion doctor has had their religion's core values of 'turn the other cheek' taken over by new values that stem from wanting to control others around them and acting in anger.

I am not going to disregard that some religious people are ignorant however! But the problem is the ignorance and NOT the religion.

"Religion, by its nature, is a self-contained answer system that cannot tolerate questions that challenge its authority. Such things endanger the supremacy of the thought-system, permitting that greatest of evils to occur: the exercise of human free will. Control is lost, and with loss of control goes the loss of the fear that kept humans in bondage to the system in the first place."

False, in buddhism you are supposed to weigh the dharma and check its accuracy as if you were checking the purity of gold in ore. Questioning is the way you learn. It is one of the 3 modes of learning: hearing, contemplation, and meditation. Buddhism is about liberation from fear. In fact my Lama states that all the teachings of Buddhism are just methods of turning you back towards confidence in reality as it is.

Chanak wrote: Ignorance and religion are bedfellows.

Which is why a remarkably large group of Americans seems to think it is perfectly okay to put a bible-thumping, gun-toting hockey-mom who's only qualification for the job is running a one-moose town at the arse-end of the world one heart attack away from the most important position on the planet. @Lady Dragonfly: I'm sorry, but the more I find out about this woman, the more I think this is the worst idea in US political history. My mom, with her 1960s degree in economy, is more qualified than Sarah Palin to be VP.

Claudius wrote:But that is your assumption that a necessary component of religion is ignorance. In Buddhism the Da Lai Lama (who is not the leader of buddhism actually...there is none) has stated that if direct experience shows that buddhism is incorrect then buddhism has to change. In Christianity I don't believe that all Christians disregard science. At least not from my experience with scientists the majority of whom were Christian! It is only some individuals choice. And their background may have something to do with it. Indeed many non-religious people know nothing of science.

Each person is an individual. And their religion is not the only mandala that is operating and dictating their actions. For example someone who kills an abortion doctor has had their religion's core values of 'turn the other cheek' taken over by new values that stem from wanting to control others around them and acting in anger.

I am not going to disregard that some religious people are ignorant however! But the problem is the ignorance and NOT the religion.

"Religion, by its nature, is a self-contained answer system that cannot tolerate questions that challenge its authority. Such things endanger the supremacy of the thought-system, permitting that greatest of evils to occur: the exercise of human free will. Control is lost, and with loss of control goes the loss of the fear that kept humans in bondage to the system in the first place."

False, in buddhism you are supposed to weigh the dharma and check its accuracy as if you were checking the purity of gold in ore. Questioning is the way you learn. It is one of the 3 modes of learning: hearing, contemplation, and meditation. Buddhism is about liberation from fear. In fact my Lama states that all the teachings of Buddhism are just methods of turning you back towards confidence in reality as it is.

Firstly...I do not make any assumptions concerning religion and ignorance. Ignorance - coerced or voluntary - is required in order to submit to dogma. The dogma must be accepted as THE answer, and all other information that contradicts dogma must be summarily rejected in order for the system to maintain control. If a system permits outside influence or changes to dogma in the form of scientific input, then it is not, by definition of human experience and history, a religion. A philosophy would be more appropriate.

For example, Christianity does not state that Jesus Christ "might" be the Son of God. His divinity and status as the Son of God is dogma. It is not to be questioned by Christians. By virtue of questioning that, one is no longer a Christian.

You do not describe dogma in your post above. You describe methods of thought and observation that do not include authoritative commandments that require embracing a particular view as unassailable and unquestionable. A necessary component of religion is dogma. A lack of dogma means that the system is not a religion.

I am aware of the current Da Lai Lama and how exceptional this man's views concerning dogma are. He's quite the fascinating fellow. That has no real bearing on this discussion. I have not heard of the Da Lai Lama claiming that a city of human beings was punished for their lifestyle by a vengeful god.

However, you are losing sight of the truth that enslaved humanity for millenia in defense of something that does not resemble religion in history....religious systems that control and dominate, and that seek to subjugate everyone to dogma and fear. I need only point to Europe 900 years ago as an example of what I am talking about. Ignorance made possible by a religious system that made kings and ruled over the lives of millions. May I add that untold numbers of human lives were barbarically terminated during various Inquisitions and Crusades? And not to appear that I am "unfairly" targeting a particular brand of religion here...such things have happened in every area of the globe, in the name(s) of any variety of deities.

Each person is an individual. And their religion is not the only mandala that is operating and dictating their actions. For example someone who kills an abortion doctor has had their religion's core values of 'turn the other cheek' taken over by new values that stem from wanting to control others around them and acting in anger.

I am not going to disregard that some religious people are ignorant however! But the problem is the ignorance and NOT the religion.

The people who committed those acts of terrorism were very much religious in their zeal and defense of their actions...going so far to claim that their god commanded them to do what they did. In any case..."turning the other cheek" does not apply to the majority of professing Christians in my country, who are on record as supporting the war in Iraq...supporting George Bush and "doing the will of god" in the Middle East...and who allow people like John Hagee to live like kings while they busy themselves preaching war and hatred from their pulpits. Yes, the man is quite wealthy. These are the Christians who profess to "turn the other cheek."

In any event, I argue that history itself supports the assertion that religion is indeed to blame for a great deal of humanity's suffering. It foments and perpetuates ignorance, intolerance, and supplies the justifications for all manner of evils in the name of divinity and a higher purpose. And in the end when the dust clears, you see that it was never about the rhetoric...in essence, it was all about the megalomaniacs in control of the religious machine. The Bin Ladens. The George Bushes.

@Moonbiter: I completely agree with you regarding Palin. I'll go further and say it would be a disaster of horrific proportions to elect McCain himself into office. The military industrial complex would love that dearly...not to mention religious nutjobs like Hagee who clamor for war with Iran and Russia from the pulpit. Amen, let the missiles fly.

Ok Chanak. Yes terrible things are going on this world. I think that I mainly disagree with your definition of religion. Not that I require that you change your definition but simply that I personally hold a different one.

I think of a pursuit of truth and deliverance from suffering as what characterize religion. In the case of Buddhism in the context of emptiness (a teaching in Buddhism) it is believed that the truth is so subtle that all 'views' regarding it are wrong.

Actually everyone sort of has there own flavor to various words. For example I heard in a dharma talk my teacher was mentioning that she has a different meaning to the word sad then many of her students. One of her students had talked about how sad is kind of a good connotation of being with your experience and feeling it rawly and a certain honesty. My teacher had a different experience because she was brought up in a family with a family member suffering from depression. So she knows when she hears that word from one of her students she has to be open to the whole context rather than just her own world and associations.

Anyhow that is what it made me think of. I guess different associations I have with the world 'religion'. Whats in a name...wouldn't a rose be sweet by some other name as well? Or **** stink?

Claudius wrote:I think of a pursuit of truth and deliverance from suffering as what characterize religion.

If only this is what actually manifested. Sadly, it is not. Instead, here is what you have: power groups seeking to eradicate education and learning in my own country via the banning of books from libraries and the censorship of school curricula in the modern day (ala Palin). Sunnis killing Shi'ites. Shi'ites killing Sunnis. Hindus killing Muslims...and Muslims killing Hindus. Vienna under the Protestant Christian John Calvin, who drowned unwed women discovered to be pregnant and those who failed to attend Church regularly. Roman Catholic Inquisitors burning anyone at the stake who failed to get with the program...and I do mean anyone.

You may postulate what religion ought to be, or you can simply look at reality and what happens when religion is allowed to gain control.

This is where we disagree. I choose to look at reality instead of an idea.

Of course reality is pointed at by ideas. In different settings religion means different things. THAT is reality.

Claudius wrote:Of course reality is pointed at by ideas. In different settings religion means different things. THAT is reality.

How does that change anything I've been posting about? You can't dispute the horrendous suffering humanity has experienced thanks to religion...so you want to quibble over semantics?

What *you* consider to be religion is nice. What history records as being done thanks to religion is awful. It speaks for itself. This is what part of my assertion is about: the religious forcing their dogma upon others by hook, crook...or as it often ends up, by the edge of a sword. The chief enemy of religion is education and learning, for armed with both people have no need for dogma...and thus don't fall prey to the superstitious fear of devils, burning hells, or whatever else is held over their heads as the fate of unbelievers.

Chanak, yes I think I understand how you use the word religion. You might be interested to discover how the rest of the world uses it. Yes, most of the world is religious

Claudius wrote:Chanak, yes I think I understand how you use the word religion. You might be interested to discover how the rest of the world uses it. Yes, most of the world is religious

Nonsense, most of the world don't give a toss about religion they're too busy trying to keep body and soul together to care about any mythical afterlife.

I disagree with an awful lot of Karl Marx's writing, but when he referred to religion as being the opiate of the masses he hit the nail right on the head!

Poppycock. Hehe

CNN - Religion trumps porn in Web popularity - June 30, 1999

Actually I didn't mean to make an argument to plurality anyhow. I just wanted to have a wake-up call that not every person believes that religion = butchery. (Ask Maharlika if you wish to ask other moderators etc or ask the man down the street (or woman))

My ex is catholic and I am buddhist. Yeah we are human but I don't think we have killed a single person. Well I did steal that candy that one time and sure I was an ass a couple of times but hey!

And no need to say *you* believe that religion is for truth. I could easily say *you* chanak believe that religion is about torturing and maiming and cutting and killing but *I* yes *I* DO NOT!!!!

You really are getting desparate to try using that to support your argument Claudius. So a search on god turned up a massive (and yes I am baing sarcastic) six and a half million hits. What's the population of the world again? Even if the number was anywhere close to meaningful, just because someone looks for a god reference on the internet doesn't indicate whether they are looking it up because they're religious or atheist.

Typical religious argument actually, totally spurious and devoid of and substantiable truth.

Yes galraen I am sure you have quite a strong argument going that the world is not religious. I bow to you.