I want to point out something i have seen in Europe. This comes from the Ungodly Europe thread. It happened here in switzerland where there is a 100% literacy rate and everybody is educated. The pope was here for a visit. Many people including two of my friends went to greet him. But also to greet him were roughly 400 swiss people who demanded he leave the country right away. On CNN, a swiss was quoted as saying he is an old man who is decrepit. He should go back and not bother us.
I am muslim but hell even i have respect and reverence for the pope. I have noticed that in western europe mainly, they see people being religious as a sign of stupidity. Its like how people dismiss red-necks. Of course people are respectful and considerate, but there is a obvious distain for people who practice religion. If you are muslim its different. We are already considered crazy zealots. But the case for a western european is different. Agree? Disagree? I could be wrong but this is what i have seen.
Religious discrimination
Religious discrimination
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
I think the core of it is that many people are scared of religion.
We have seen throughout history and present what is done in the name of religion, and this is scary.
Also - using religious arguments to explain or accept the state of things, is something that seems illogical, irrationel and unscientifc to most non-religious people. Which is proberly where the "red-neck" feel comes into play.
We have seen throughout history and present what is done in the name of religion, and this is scary.
Also - using religious arguments to explain or accept the state of things, is something that seems illogical, irrationel and unscientifc to most non-religious people. Which is proberly where the "red-neck" feel comes into play.
Insert signature here.
I agree with Xan that many people fear religion, since it has been used (and is used) to justify horrendous atrocities against fellow human beings. This is not a fault in religion itself. Ideologies have during the 20th century served the same purpose, which is why right wing conservatives fear communists and vice versa.
In my view, two of the key components in what permits religious or ideological leaders to commit these acts is the lack of critical review of, and insight into the system. This has nothing to do with religion per se - it is exactly the reason why I fear the current US government more than anything else on earth (including Osama bin Laden) - but it is more predominantly found in the esotheric structures of religious organisations.
My personal reaction to religious people depends highly on the way they are religious. I am guilty as charged in considering some religious people to be rednecks and plain dumb, and what qualifies them is their unquestioned obedience of the words of an non-present god as given to them by another human being. This puts them in the same redneck category as most social democrats in Sweden, since they act and 'dont think' in the exact same way - Sheep! On the other hand, some of my friends are believers in the christian god and the christian faith (different varieties), but they don't see men of the church as someone with authority from god. Sure, they go to church and listen to the cermon, but they contemplate what is said and make their own choices on what to accept. The same is true for the muslim friend I have. These people I do not consider to be rednecks. Another category of religious practitioners that instantly go in the redneck bin are those trying to convert me to their faith - and I mean instantly. I find it highly disrespectful of my person if someone without knowing me tries to push their faith on me, and if they do know me it's even worse. This does not include religious discussions which I think is a different matter altogether, and which I used to enjoy until after I lived in "Swedens Jerusalem" for a number of years.
In my view, two of the key components in what permits religious or ideological leaders to commit these acts is the lack of critical review of, and insight into the system. This has nothing to do with religion per se - it is exactly the reason why I fear the current US government more than anything else on earth (including Osama bin Laden) - but it is more predominantly found in the esotheric structures of religious organisations.
My personal reaction to religious people depends highly on the way they are religious. I am guilty as charged in considering some religious people to be rednecks and plain dumb, and what qualifies them is their unquestioned obedience of the words of an non-present god as given to them by another human being. This puts them in the same redneck category as most social democrats in Sweden, since they act and 'dont think' in the exact same way - Sheep! On the other hand, some of my friends are believers in the christian god and the christian faith (different varieties), but they don't see men of the church as someone with authority from god. Sure, they go to church and listen to the cermon, but they contemplate what is said and make their own choices on what to accept. The same is true for the muslim friend I have. These people I do not consider to be rednecks. Another category of religious practitioners that instantly go in the redneck bin are those trying to convert me to their faith - and I mean instantly. I find it highly disrespectful of my person if someone without knowing me tries to push their faith on me, and if they do know me it's even worse. This does not include religious discussions which I think is a different matter altogether, and which I used to enjoy until after I lived in "Swedens Jerusalem" for a number of years.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
Well, the pope is simply another high-profile figure who deserves no more respect or reverence than your average politician.
I seriously doubt fear of religion led to protesting the pope. His views have been hotly contested even within the Catholic Church.
I seriously doubt fear of religion led to protesting the pope. His views have been hotly contested even within the Catholic Church.
There's nothing a little poison couldn't cure...
What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, ... to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security.
What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, ... to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security.
-
Gevaudan'sBeast
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 5:24 am
- Location: U.S.A
- Contact:
I'd agree that there is a certain hostility to religious iconic figures or religios icons, its just I find it baffling considering the world is like 90% religious (okay its not an exact statistic, so don't bother quoting me on it as fact). I think that some of the hostility can be attributed to the modern move away from christian religions, and the recent hostility to majority Eastern relions, like Islam, so people are in a state where they don't empathise with any major religion as to a great a degree as they used to, and as a result feel threatened by any mention of religious activity, especially in their own country.
From "Feet of Clay" By Terry Pratchett:
"It seemed to be a chronic disease. It was as if even the most intelligent person had this little blank spot in their heads where someone had written: "Kings. What a good idea." Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It was its tendency to bend at the knees.
"It seemed to be a chronic disease. It was as if even the most intelligent person had this little blank spot in their heads where someone had written: "Kings. What a good idea." Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It was its tendency to bend at the knees.
@Sojourner: I agree.
I think one must differentiate between religious icons and persons. The pope is first, last and always human. He is also a human expressing views that many, including me, find highly offensive. The problem is, that when you oppose the pope because of his 14th century ethics, your'e attacking a religious icon and not his idiotic views and this is exactly I find objectionable with religion. These so called "religious icons" can say basically anything, and any rebuke is an "attack" on that religion.
If the pope wants to be an icon and be treated as such, he should shut up and just wave nicely at easter.
I think one must differentiate between religious icons and persons. The pope is first, last and always human. He is also a human expressing views that many, including me, find highly offensive. The problem is, that when you oppose the pope because of his 14th century ethics, your'e attacking a religious icon and not his idiotic views and this is exactly I find objectionable with religion. These so called "religious icons" can say basically anything, and any rebuke is an "attack" on that religion.
If the pope wants to be an icon and be treated as such, he should shut up and just wave nicely at easter.The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
[QUOTE=Silur]@Sojourner: I agree.
I think one must differentiate between religious icons and persons. The pope is first, last and always human. He is also a human expressing views that many, including me, find highly offensive. The problem is, that when you oppose the pope because of his 14th century ethics, your'e attacking a religious icon and not his idiotic views and this is exactly I find objectionable with religion. These so called "religious icons" can say basically anything, and any rebuke is an "attack" on that religion. If the pope wants to be an icon and be treated as such, he should shut up and just wave nicely at easter.[/QUOTE]
When you've got Catholic clergy openly saying, "God, please get him out of here!", that's rather telling.
I think one must differentiate between religious icons and persons. The pope is first, last and always human. He is also a human expressing views that many, including me, find highly offensive. The problem is, that when you oppose the pope because of his 14th century ethics, your'e attacking a religious icon and not his idiotic views and this is exactly I find objectionable with religion. These so called "religious icons" can say basically anything, and any rebuke is an "attack" on that religion.
If the pope wants to be an icon and be treated as such, he should shut up and just wave nicely at easter.[/QUOTE]When you've got Catholic clergy openly saying, "God, please get him out of here!", that's rather telling.
There's nothing a little poison couldn't cure...
What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, ... to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security.
What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, ... to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Sojourner]When you've got Catholic clergy openly saying, "God, please get him out of here!", that's rather telling.[/QUOTE]
But remember, it's only the moderate wing of Roman Catholicism which is doing this. (The same things were being said of then-Pope John XXIII back in the early 1960s, but by the out-of-power conservatives.) They have literally next to no representation in the College of Cardinals. There are 190 cardinals in all, and nearly all of them were appointed by the current Pope. They're happy with the way things are, and when he goes, it's unlikely they will bring in anybody whose ideology differs significantly from theirs.
Hopes for a change are therefore almost certainly bound to be dashed. It will be interesting to watch the parallel development of the Anglican/Episcopal Church, which has adopted several of the positions that the RCC has refused to consider: the ordination of women, appointing an openly gay bishop, accepting the use of sexual contraceptives, etc.
I'd agree that there is a certain hostility to religious iconic figures or religios icons, its just I find it baffling considering the world is like 90% religious (okay its not an exact statistic, so don't bother quoting me on it as fact).
I think we have to define what constitues "religious." Many people acknowledge a religious background, but have no religious beliefs to speak of, or regard it as a social obligation. Others are members of religions that are non-monotheistic. Still others can be placed in what I call "fudged categories." For example, the RCC claims that most of South and Central America is Roman Catholic. In fact, much of it follows Santeria, a combination of Roman Catholicism, African polytheism, and even modern heroes who have been raised to godly status. I remember a tour guide in a Merida, Venezuela museum stuttering past a papier mache religious exhibit by elementary school kids. It showed a "Virgin Mary" in the center with some highly unusual implements (including a sickle, which she was wielding), while she was surrounded by saints that included Jesus and a turn-of-the-century Venezuelan physician who was noted for his delight in helping the poor. (He was killed in the first car accident in the country.) A pantheon in which Jesus is a saint alongside Dr. Jose Gregorio Hernandez in his sober black turn-of-the-20th-century suit, surrounding a goddess, is not standard RCC practice.
Are these people "religious?" Certainly, but their patterns of religious worship lie outside the parameters of standard monotheistic belief. They cannot reasonably be expected to follow in lockstep the pronouncements of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The Pope may have removed "liberation theology" bishops from Central and South America (thus earning him the praise of many wealthy dictators), but it doesn't affect facts-on-the-ground. People still believe what they believe, and if the RCC can't give 'em what they want, they simply turn elsewhere.
Just for the record, so that my own opinions are weighted with the doubt they deserve, I'm a Wiccan and a trad/Gardnerian witch, initiated 26 years ago. So I *do* have a bit of a chip on my shoulder where evangelizing or zealous monotheism is concerned.
But remember, it's only the moderate wing of Roman Catholicism which is doing this. (The same things were being said of then-Pope John XXIII back in the early 1960s, but by the out-of-power conservatives.) They have literally next to no representation in the College of Cardinals. There are 190 cardinals in all, and nearly all of them were appointed by the current Pope. They're happy with the way things are, and when he goes, it's unlikely they will bring in anybody whose ideology differs significantly from theirs.
Hopes for a change are therefore almost certainly bound to be dashed. It will be interesting to watch the parallel development of the Anglican/Episcopal Church, which has adopted several of the positions that the RCC has refused to consider: the ordination of women, appointing an openly gay bishop, accepting the use of sexual contraceptives, etc.
I'd agree that there is a certain hostility to religious iconic figures or religios icons, its just I find it baffling considering the world is like 90% religious (okay its not an exact statistic, so don't bother quoting me on it as fact).
I think we have to define what constitues "religious." Many people acknowledge a religious background, but have no religious beliefs to speak of, or regard it as a social obligation. Others are members of religions that are non-monotheistic. Still others can be placed in what I call "fudged categories." For example, the RCC claims that most of South and Central America is Roman Catholic. In fact, much of it follows Santeria, a combination of Roman Catholicism, African polytheism, and even modern heroes who have been raised to godly status. I remember a tour guide in a Merida, Venezuela museum stuttering past a papier mache religious exhibit by elementary school kids. It showed a "Virgin Mary" in the center with some highly unusual implements (including a sickle, which she was wielding), while she was surrounded by saints that included Jesus and a turn-of-the-century Venezuelan physician who was noted for his delight in helping the poor. (He was killed in the first car accident in the country.) A pantheon in which Jesus is a saint alongside Dr. Jose Gregorio Hernandez in his sober black turn-of-the-20th-century suit, surrounding a goddess, is not standard RCC practice.
Are these people "religious?" Certainly, but their patterns of religious worship lie outside the parameters of standard monotheistic belief. They cannot reasonably be expected to follow in lockstep the pronouncements of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The Pope may have removed "liberation theology" bishops from Central and South America (thus earning him the praise of many wealthy dictators), but it doesn't affect facts-on-the-ground. People still believe what they believe, and if the RCC can't give 'em what they want, they simply turn elsewhere.
Just for the record, so that my own opinions are weighted with the doubt they deserve, I'm a Wiccan and a trad/Gardnerian witch, initiated 26 years ago. So I *do* have a bit of a chip on my shoulder where evangelizing or zealous monotheism is concerned.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Here's more on his visit to Switzerland:
Trip Preview: Pope Faces Swiss Hostilty:
Trip Preview: Pope Faces Swiss Hostilty:
Nevertheless, the anti-papal bias was clear on May 18, when a group of 40 Swiss Catholic theologians marked the Pope's birthday by calling upon him to resign. A subsequent poll found that 3 out of 4 Swiss Catholics wants the Pope to step down. (That sentiment is most widespread among German-speaking Catholics.)
Switzerland has furnished the battleground for several contentious debates within the Catholic Church in recent decades. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, although he was of French origin, centered his traditionalist movement in Econe, Switzerland, and died there in 1991 after his excommunication. The Swiss Dominica theologian, Stephne Pfurtner, was the subject of a Vatican inquiry in the 1970s because of his opposition to Church teachings on sexual morality. Then another dissident theologian became much more celebrated: Hans Küng, who was teaching at the University of Tubingen, was disciplined by the Vatican in 1979. The declaration from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, announcing that Küng could not claim to be a Catholic theologian, drew an avalanche of protests
More recently, Swiss hostility toward the Vatican was inflamed by the appointment of a new bishop in Chur. Under the terms of an old agreement the cathedral chapter of Chur has the right to select the diocesan bishop, from a list of three names provided by the Vatican. But in 1988, Pope John Paul named Wolfgang Haas as the coadjutor bishop with the right of succession, effectively appointing him to success Bishop Johannes Vonderarch. That appointment drew a vehement protest from the cathedral chapter, which called it a "takeover by force."
There's nothing a little poison couldn't cure...
What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, ... to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security.
What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, ... to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security.
-
Luis Antonio
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:00 am
- Location: In the home of the demoted.
- Contact:
CM, I agree with your respectfull way to look at it. I dont like churches, I dont follow the pope, but I think he is due respect, cause he is elder, he has done some interesting things for lots of people who follow him.
@Sojourner, I just think that, based on what CM says, people let the pope go. If he is but another person, cant he express his feelings? Is he, by any means, disrupting your way of life? I question that myself everytime my mom tries to bring me back to the church. We usually have discussions about that, but I respect her opinion, just wont follow her.
@Sojourner, I just think that, based on what CM says, people let the pope go. If he is but another person, cant he express his feelings? Is he, by any means, disrupting your way of life? I question that myself everytime my mom tries to bring me back to the church. We usually have discussions about that, but I respect her opinion, just wont follow her.
Flesh to stone ain't permanent, it seems.
[QUOTE=Nightmare]I simply say it doesn't matter what you believe in, as long as it compels you to do the right things. [/QUOTE]
But the right things .... dosen't this depend on what you belive in?
(I do agree with you by the way )
As for the Pope, then I fail to see why this guy should have more respect the any other person, simply because he was chosen to be the Pope.
I will respect actions over words anyday, so if he accomplishes something with the power given to him, then I respect him more. (for instance attempting to mediate in peace-talks, that is respectable).
People shouldn't be respected for their roles, whatever that role might be, but for what they do with the power given to them.
[/QUOTE]But the right things .... dosen't this depend on what you belive in?
(I do agree with you by the way
)As for the Pope, then I fail to see why this guy should have more respect the any other person, simply because he was chosen to be the Pope.
I will respect actions over words anyday, so if he accomplishes something with the power given to him, then I respect him more. (for instance attempting to mediate in peace-talks, that is respectable).
People shouldn't be respected for their roles, whatever that role might be, but for what they do with the power given to them.
Insert signature here.
@Luis Antonio: Well one thing the Pope does deserve to be despised for is his rigid views on the use of condoms. This has increased the spreading of AIDS in all Catholic countries across the globe. For that alone I say burn him at the stake.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
Hey sorry for the delay in posting. Oddly enough every time i start a thread work springs up or a social obligation and i dont have time to respond. Anyway i think there are three subjects of discussion, which i would like to learn more about esp. in one case. They are:
1. Respect for the Pope
2. Catholicism and its present situation which could be a seperate discussion
3. And the idea that religion is backwards and basically breeds hatred. It hasnt been obviously stated by it is the image that people get when they think of religion which in my opinion is a mis-conception. Anyway one by one.
1. Respecting the Pope, is like respecting any leader or historical figure. Mandela and Gandhi deserve respect. No one will contend that. But that is because the media and common opinion says so. They led freedom movements, but you hear nobody speak about the former leader of Nambia who was the President of the UNGA for 3 years. He fought racism and oppression just like mandela did. But Mandela was given the media coverage, this man was not. I am not detracting anything from Mandela. He is a great man, a saint if you want to say. But these both men suffered alot. But you obviously give Mandela more respect. It is only natural because you have heard more about him. There are many people who are given respect for what they have done or have the ability to do. You show respect for both the position and the person. Just because you dont agree with what the person says does not mean you show him less respect.
Bush may be an idiot, but he is regardles the President of the United States and deserves respect for his position and authority. Same can be said for the Pope. The respect is not given for what he is. But what he stands for. It is basically insulting to treat him like the common man on the street because he is not because he is the embodiment of a religious faith or ideal.
3. People fear religion. People feel that religion leads to conflict. That i frankly think is wrong. Religion cant be responable for anything because it is not a phyiscal force in the realistic sense. It is the actions and interpretations that individuals make from religion that causes conflict. Just like Bush referred to the War on Terrorism as another crusade. That was not a fault of the religion but of the man. Blaming religion for the inadequacies of men is basically attempting to hide the fact that people really hate you. It is not that religion corrupts them. But rather they corrupt religion to use it to kill you. You basically realise that people hate you enough for them to find justification for it in something considered by many to be pure which is their faith.
That also leads to the idea what did we do that is so bad that they want to hurt us or kill us. People dont like that. People generally dont want to find fault in their actions/thoughts/words so they blame something they cant. Which in this case is religion. Its ok we didnt do anything wrong because the religion says they should kill us. Or that religions demands superiority and thus they want to kill or hurt us. Its not our fault. Rather it is the others and their religion that is to blame.
The same happens to those who are doing the killing. We arent doing anything wrong because something "pure" like religion has allowed us to do this killing. So this killing is "pure".
This can be said for any religion. It may sound like i am speaking about Islam, but that is the most current examples. It happens in Hinduism. Muslims in india see Hinduism in the same light. They cant detract that the muslims in India have done very little to integrate. Many have but many still want special rights more than what is alloted to all minorities. Basically they want to be the super minority group that can do whatever it wishes and are never to blame.
I have purposesly left 2 alone as i do not know enough on the subject but love to learn more.
1. Respect for the Pope
2. Catholicism and its present situation which could be a seperate discussion
3. And the idea that religion is backwards and basically breeds hatred. It hasnt been obviously stated by it is the image that people get when they think of religion which in my opinion is a mis-conception. Anyway one by one.
1. Respecting the Pope, is like respecting any leader or historical figure. Mandela and Gandhi deserve respect. No one will contend that. But that is because the media and common opinion says so. They led freedom movements, but you hear nobody speak about the former leader of Nambia who was the President of the UNGA for 3 years. He fought racism and oppression just like mandela did. But Mandela was given the media coverage, this man was not. I am not detracting anything from Mandela. He is a great man, a saint if you want to say. But these both men suffered alot. But you obviously give Mandela more respect. It is only natural because you have heard more about him. There are many people who are given respect for what they have done or have the ability to do. You show respect for both the position and the person. Just because you dont agree with what the person says does not mean you show him less respect.
Bush may be an idiot, but he is regardles the President of the United States and deserves respect for his position and authority. Same can be said for the Pope. The respect is not given for what he is. But what he stands for. It is basically insulting to treat him like the common man on the street because he is not because he is the embodiment of a religious faith or ideal.
3. People fear religion. People feel that religion leads to conflict. That i frankly think is wrong. Religion cant be responable for anything because it is not a phyiscal force in the realistic sense. It is the actions and interpretations that individuals make from religion that causes conflict. Just like Bush referred to the War on Terrorism as another crusade. That was not a fault of the religion but of the man. Blaming religion for the inadequacies of men is basically attempting to hide the fact that people really hate you. It is not that religion corrupts them. But rather they corrupt religion to use it to kill you. You basically realise that people hate you enough for them to find justification for it in something considered by many to be pure which is their faith.
That also leads to the idea what did we do that is so bad that they want to hurt us or kill us. People dont like that. People generally dont want to find fault in their actions/thoughts/words so they blame something they cant. Which in this case is religion. Its ok we didnt do anything wrong because the religion says they should kill us. Or that religions demands superiority and thus they want to kill or hurt us. Its not our fault. Rather it is the others and their religion that is to blame.
The same happens to those who are doing the killing. We arent doing anything wrong because something "pure" like religion has allowed us to do this killing. So this killing is "pure".
This can be said for any religion. It may sound like i am speaking about Islam, but that is the most current examples. It happens in Hinduism. Muslims in india see Hinduism in the same light. They cant detract that the muslims in India have done very little to integrate. Many have but many still want special rights more than what is alloted to all minorities. Basically they want to be the super minority group that can do whatever it wishes and are never to blame.
I have purposesly left 2 alone as i do not know enough on the subject but love to learn more.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
[QUOTE=CM]<snip>
Bush may be an idiot, but he is regardles the President of the United States and deserves respect for his position and authority. Same can be said for the Pope. The respect is not given for what he is. But what he stands for. It is basically insulting to treat him like the common man on the street because he is not because he is the embodiment of a religious faith or ideal.
<snip>
[/QUOTE]
This I strongly disagree with. I can't respect a person, regardless of position if the person acts in a manner I am in disagreement with.
A president deserves respect if he strives to use his power/authority for something worthwile.
Nobody respects Adolf Hitler eventhough he was leader of country. You wouldn't respect Bush if he went out and beat up some random guy either would you? Regardless of the fact that he is president?
Respect is earned, not given.
[QUOTE=CM]<snip>
3. People fear religion. People feel that religion leads to conflict. That i frankly think is wrong. Religion cant be responable for anything because it is not a phyiscal force in the realistic sense. It is the actions and interpretations that individuals make from religion that causes conflict. <snip>
[/QUOTE]
As for the other point you make, this I can't agree with either.
If both historic and present we see an ideology being misused continuesly - isn't it safe to contemplate if there is something wrong with the ideology? Just because religion isn't a physical item, dosen't mean it isn't harmfull in its current implementation. It is the same for ideologies of all kind in my oppinion. Now racisme as an ideology isn't a physical thing or substance. But that doesn't mean we can't blame the ideology for the problems caused by the practice of racisme?
It is the same in my oppinon with religion. We see prosecusions, wars, terrorisme, oppression and all other things in the name of different religions, then it should be logical to actually question the justification of religions.
Bush may be an idiot, but he is regardles the President of the United States and deserves respect for his position and authority. Same can be said for the Pope. The respect is not given for what he is. But what he stands for. It is basically insulting to treat him like the common man on the street because he is not because he is the embodiment of a religious faith or ideal.
<snip>
[/QUOTE]
This I strongly disagree with. I can't respect a person, regardless of position if the person acts in a manner I am in disagreement with.
A president deserves respect if he strives to use his power/authority for something worthwile.
Nobody respects Adolf Hitler eventhough he was leader of country. You wouldn't respect Bush if he went out and beat up some random guy either would you? Regardless of the fact that he is president?
Respect is earned, not given.
[QUOTE=CM]<snip>
3. People fear religion. People feel that religion leads to conflict. That i frankly think is wrong. Religion cant be responable for anything because it is not a phyiscal force in the realistic sense. It is the actions and interpretations that individuals make from religion that causes conflict. <snip>
[/QUOTE]
As for the other point you make, this I can't agree with either.
If both historic and present we see an ideology being misused continuesly - isn't it safe to contemplate if there is something wrong with the ideology? Just because religion isn't a physical item, dosen't mean it isn't harmfull in its current implementation. It is the same for ideologies of all kind in my oppinion. Now racisme as an ideology isn't a physical thing or substance. But that doesn't mean we can't blame the ideology for the problems caused by the practice of racisme?
It is the same in my oppinon with religion. We see prosecusions, wars, terrorisme, oppression and all other things in the name of different religions, then it should be logical to actually question the justification of religions.
Insert signature here.
1. I disagree firmly. All mankind are equals and if you want respect you earn it. Neither Bush nor the Pope has earned mine. I will never respect anyone for managing to get a title. Especially not considering that Bush got the seat by cheating and the Pope gets elected by at best 120 old men looking at how they themselves best can get ahead. Since they now are disqualified from voting when they're over 80 years old, it might be *much* fewer people involved in the "vote".
2. I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I agree that religion as an abstract idea in the head of a believer is not generally the cause of war, but the power structures of religion are not based on that abstract thing. Religion is the politics of emotion whereas "normal politics" is supposed to be the politics of reason (Bah!). The religious leaders use their position of power to have their whims fulfilled just as political leaders do.
What used to scare me more about religion than politics was that emotional manipulation is acceptable, dogmatic statements are valid without need for other explanation than "god", and that polarised standpoints such as "we are good, they are evil" were the norm. Now I cannot see any distinct difference between religious leaders with ambitions and political leaders with ambitions. The consequence being that I now fear political zealots just as much as I fear the religious zealots.
2. I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I agree that religion as an abstract idea in the head of a believer is not generally the cause of war, but the power structures of religion are not based on that abstract thing. Religion is the politics of emotion whereas "normal politics" is supposed to be the politics of reason (Bah!). The religious leaders use their position of power to have their whims fulfilled just as political leaders do.
What used to scare me more about religion than politics was that emotional manipulation is acceptable, dogmatic statements are valid without need for other explanation than "god", and that polarised standpoints such as "we are good, they are evil" were the norm. Now I cannot see any distinct difference between religious leaders with ambitions and political leaders with ambitions. The consequence being that I now fear political zealots just as much as I fear the religious zealots.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
[QUOTE=Nightmare]Well, almost all major religions are rehashed versions of the same message...Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. [/QUOTE]
Which would indicate that we're all a bunch of masochists?
[/QUOTE]Which would indicate that we're all a bunch of masochists?
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
I take issue with the Vatican's stance on abortion, too. I fail to see how old men have the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body.
Note: this is not to start an argument on abortion. If you want to discuss the morality of it, bump an old debate on it.
Note: this is not to start an argument on abortion. If you want to discuss the morality of it, bump an old debate on it.
If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.