Religon

[JoshK]

Gaston_Lagaffe said:

A few weeks back I read a review in the New York Times of the (very large) manifesto of the guy who was one of the founders of Al-Queda. According to the writer, it seems that some of Al-Queda's main peeves with the western world, but the US in particular, are:

 

1) the US Gov. separates religion from government (you could argue this point though),

2) Christianity separates religion from science, whereas Islam merges the two,

3) Individual freedom, particulary the freedom of women.

 

Regretfully, I couldn't find the article again to site it.

 

Yeah, individual freedom sucks. How can they claim faith in a religion that "merges science and religion" yet discriminates against women for faith based reasons. Jackasses.

[Gaston_Lagaffe]

Yeah, individual freedom sucks. How can they claim faith in a religion that "merges science and religion" yet discriminates against women for faith based reasons. Jackasses.

 

Because they don't think the two have anything to do with each other; does it? For many centuries muslims had a great reputation for encouraging a questioning style of education, and were mostly responsible for the protection of scientific documents that the Christian Church wanted burned. From the books and articles I've read it seemed like the academic's Paradise, both for men and women alike. To this day it appears that the Christian church is largely resistant to scientific discoveries because they view it as a threat to their faith, whereas muslims are the exact opposite. I would like to point out though, that I feel like Islam today appears to be going away from its roots, and straying into general oppression of individual freedom.

[Fejas]

joshs said:

Fejas (and DFA), I don't understand why you think I'm being closed-minded. What I posted was based on my own observation of the words & actions of religious groups and of the scientific community. Is there any one of my points in particular that you think is untrue?

 

-Josh

 

Based souly on the people I think your right, but I wasn't refering to the community when I said science is a religion, I was refern to the diction... There is a huge difference...

 

[JoshK]

Gaston_Lagaffe said:

Yeah, individual freedom sucks. How can they claim faith in a religion that "merges science and religion" yet discriminates against women for faith based reasons. Jackasses.

 

Because they don't think the two have anything to do with each other; does it? For many centuries muslims had a great reputation for encouraging a questioning style of education, and were mostly responsible for the protection of scientific documents that the Christian Church wanted burned. From the books and articles I've read it seemed like the academic's Paradise, both for men and women alike. To this day it appears that the Christian church is largely resistant to scientific discoveries because they view it as a threat to their faith, whereas muslims are the exact opposite. I would like to point out though, that I feel like Islam today appears to be going away from its roots, and straying into general oppression of individual freedom.

 

Gotcha...I kind of misundestood the phrasing of the points. The point you make is valid. I am by no means defending the history of the christian chruch. It's been **FAR** more destructive to the world throughout history than the muslim faith has. Unfortunately, you are right when you say it seems today's Islam is more about restricting freedom and simply opposing anything non-Muslim than encouraging teaching, etc.

[Ursa_Eagle]

Fundamentalism from any religion scares me. I've always found that fundanmentalists are always willing to force their religion on you, but will not let you explain anything that you believe in (that they don't agree with) without telling you that you're wrong. Unfortunately, it's the fundamentalists from any religion that are generally the most visible, so people get the wrong impression of some (if not all) religions. I think that religions, when done properly, are a good thing, with the key point being that you have to maintain an open mind. It helps people be happier, and the basic beliefs of most religions tend to be positive things.

I think part of the problem with mixing religion and government is that it tends to be the fundamentalists who get the control. (I have no data to back this part up, this is just the impression that I have.)

[Gaston_Lagaffe]

I think part of the problem with mixing religion and government is that it tends to be the fundamentalists who get the control. (I have no data to back this part up, this is just the impression that I have.)

 

Hmmm, I think that there are several European countries where church and state aren't separated, yet I can't point to any country over there and say that they're fundemenalists, with the exception of Turkey perhaps. But then again, it's not something that I've kept an eye out for. Perhaps the Euros don't feel the need to push their faith based beliefs onto others via laws.

[Ursa_Eagle]

Gaston_Lagaffe said:

Perhaps the Euros don't feel the need to push their faith based beliefs onto others via laws.

 

Perhaps church and state aren't specifically separated there, but if they aren't making laws forcing their beliefs on their people or making decisions based on religion, then I don't see them as being together. I was referring to when fundamentalists run countries and force their views and beliefs of their people. The ones that stand out in my mind right now are mostly islamic, however, that's probably just beacuse of the press they're receiving right now. I'm reminded of Christians being persecuted back before it became mainstream, then it was protestants being persecuted by Catholics, the spanish inquisition attacking heresy, etc.

It just seems to me that mixing fundamentalists with government is a bad idea, was there a time when it worked?

Again, these are impressions, not necessarily facts. If I'm talking out of my ass, please let me know (and provide facts.) (One of the reasons I'm putting this out is so I can learn more...)

[Gaston_Lagaffe]

Ursa_Eagle said:

It just seems to me that mixing fundamentalists with government is a bad idea, was there a time when it worked?

 

You could take it a step further and just say that extremism, whether faith based or politically (socialism, capitalism, communism) is a bad idea. The question I'm asking myself is what leads people to accept such extremism. Why do they flock towards it in the first place, and is it preventable? I read, for instance, that the Taliban was composed mainly of young Afghan men who were raised in refugee camps during the war with the USSR. There they grew up without role models or leaders and started interpreting the Koran by themselves, leading to a VERY literal interpretation of the Koran. Then when they returned to Afghanistan it was relatively easy for them to assume control of the government.

 

I recall that when the US gov. was negotiating with the Taliban for the extradition of Osama Bin Laden, the US gov. was very frustrated with the Taliban because the were unfamiliar with diplomatic talk (several experts have since suggested that when the Taliban was saying that they didn't know where Bin Laden was, that it was actually an offer to secretly hand him over).

[Fairweather]

joshs said:

Fairweather said:

2) Environmentalism is the religion of the left.....and it is preached to our children in public schools.

 

Uh-oh...you're not one of those "science is a religion" wackos, are you? Next you'll be telling us the Earth is flat.

 

-Josh

 

The "environmentalism-as-religion" taught in our schools to which I was referring is very far removed from science. If you had kids in public school as I do, you'd understand.

 

I am 100% pro science education. My children must be taught scientific method, evolution, and all of the other things that the religious right kooks often decry as blasphemy. However, "environmentalism" is not currently presented in a scientific fashion in primary public schools. It is presented emotion over reason, and skepticism is scorned, not embraced and explored. It has, in fact, become a religion to many on the left.

 

I stand by my statement.

[JoshK]

Fairweather said:

joshs said:

Fairweather said:

2) Environmentalism is the religion of the left.....and it is preached to our children in public schools.

 

Uh-oh...you're not one of those "science is a religion" wackos, are you? Next you'll be telling us the Earth is flat.

 

-Josh

 

The "environmentalism-as-religion" taught in our schools to which I was referring is very far removed from science. If you had kids in public school as I do, you'd understand.

 

I am 100% pro science education. My children must be taught scientific method, evolution, and all of the other things that the religious right kooks often decry as blasphemy. However, "environmentalism" is not currently presented in a scientific fashion in primary public schools. It is presented emotion over reason, and skepticism is scorned, not embraced and explored. It has, in fact, become a religion to many on the left.

 

I stand by my statement.

 

I'm curious what beliefs you believe the left wing conspiracy has instilled in your chilren? I attended public school (ok, granted, a while ago...but my memory is decent) and don't recall anything untrue taught in the name of environmentalism.

[Gaston_Lagaffe]

The "environmentalism-as-religion" taught in our schools to which I was referring is very far removed from science. If you had kids in public school as I do, you'd understand.

 

I am 100% pro science education. My children must be taught scientific method, evolution, and all of the other things that the religious right kooks often decry as blasphemy. However, "environmentalism" is not currently presented in a scientific fashion in primary public schools. It is presented emotion over reason, and skepticism is scorned, not embraced and explored. It has, in fact, become a religion to many on the left.

 

I stand by my statement.

 

I took environ sci in college so I'm curious what they're teaching kids these day. I have a suspicion, but could you elaborate? Thx

[Fairweather]

joshs said:

Science is not a religion. Religion is based on dogma; science is based on reality and the observation thereof. Religion resists change; science is constantly changing as we learn more about reality and adjust our theories to better represent it. Religion depends on faith (i.e., believing something for no good reason); science encourages skepticism, experimentation, and open-mindedness. Religion seeks to impose moral judgements on behavior and beliefs; science seeks to expose useful information about the world we live in.

 

Any questions?

 

-Josh

 

Joshs says: "Religion seeks to impose moral judgements on behavior and beliefs..."

 

Like I said....sounds like The church of GreenPeace and The Sierra Club cult to me!

[joshs]

Well, I have to admit I have no idea what's being taught in your kids' school, and perhaps in light of that, my off-the-cuff remark about you being a "wacko" was a little harsh. However, I do think that the tenets of environmental conservation have firm scientific roots. If your position is that teachers should not attempt to instill any morals or ethics in their students, I can't disagree with you. However, if you're picking on environmentalism in particular because you think it's more religion than science, I think you're off base.

 

-Josh

 

[Ursa_Eagle]

Gaston_Lagaffe said:

You could take it a step further and just say that extremism, whether faith based or politically (socialism, capitalism, communism) is a bad idea.

 

Yes, but there's also a flip side. Unfortunately, if everyone was moderate, there would be a lot less change. It's the extremists who bring certain issues to light. I don't think that they should have extremists running governments or other entities, rather, have a moderate run it with the extremists from both sides acting as advisors. That way, the issues get brought to light, but don't get out of hand. That being said, not every issue needs an extreme viewpoint. Some issues are fine with *only* moderatation.

[specialed]

Ursa_Eagle said:

Gaston_Lagaffe said:

You could take it a step further and just say that extremism, whether faith based or politically (socialism, capitalism, communism) is a bad idea.

 

Yes, but there's also a flip side. Unfortunately, if everyone was moderate, there would be a lot less change. It's the extremists who bring certain issues to light. I don't think that they should have extremists running governments or other entities, rather, have a moderate run it with the extremists from both sides acting as advisors. That way, the issues get brought to light, but don't get out of hand. That being said, not every issue needs an extreme viewpoint. Some issues are fine with *only* moderatation.

 

The idea of a liberal government system is that there are lots of people who do have extreme points of view, but their agendas don't dominate everyone elses. There are few people who are moderate on every issue. Everyone has some extreme beliefs on one issue or another, but they kind of cancel eachother out and theoretically (and more or less practically) we end up on the moderate path. Where as with authoritarianism and communism one groups exteme agenda dominates everyone else's view.

 

One of the main tenents of the liberal approach, as Ursa pointed out, is that big change is slow. But that's generally good for big decision type of things. Nations need some continuity. We can't go around having a revolution every five years, because that's counter-productive. If something needs to change, it will get debated and moderated about 25 zillion times before its inacted - good or bad.