George W.

[Dechristo]

...all the major religions were fashioned by people who didn't know that the earth was round...

 

Thats why it talks in the bible about the wind blowing to the east and the coming from the west even before they knew the earth was round. Stupid.

 

Yeah, man. There's no east/west on a flat plain, eh?

 

Just think of it this way: east/west is the "x" axis, north/south is the "y" axis, and your head up your ass is the "z" axis.

[ashw_justin]

EMQEx6KuEAo

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Further, he said, religious people of all persuasions carry with them the fundamental idea that they have a specially informed knowledge of what god wants for our world.

Exactly. Each and every sect thinks it knows better than the other sect, and knows better than anyone else. It doesn't matter if the ideas conflict with science. Faith means not listening to anyone else's argument with an open ear. Quite the contrary.

 

Men and women of faith are praised and held in the highest esteem for being steadfast in closing their minds to ideas that might contaminate the dogma.

 

I find that most visceral attacks against religion are not made in a response to actual incidents of religious people engaging in a "I know better than thou" attitude, but rather, by the conscience of those who reject religion and God.

 

Furthermore, those who attack all religious people, and faiths with a broad-brush are exhibiting the same disrespect, dismissiveness, ignorance, and outright arrogance that they claim to be rallying against.

 

[archenemy]

agreed.

[archenemy]

And to make big statements like "every religion thinks it knows best" shows a profound lack of depth in religions that one has been exposed to. I have been to a service in Viet Nam where they practise Cao Dai, a synthesis of Taoism, Buddhism, Catholicism, and Confucianism. I would say that they don't think one type of religion is better than another--nor do they say theirs is the only way. This is only one example of an organized religion that has done this.

 

Many, many individuals have found a way to allow many part of religious precepts to be incorporated into their own system (these are usually the "I'm spiritual, not religious folks). So even on a more granular level, people often find a way to harmonize what may seem like an overwhelmingly disparate collection of beliefs.

[Seahawks]

Further, he said, religious people of all persuasions carry with them the fundamental idea that they have a specially informed knowledge of what god wants for our world.

Exactly. Each and every sect thinks it knows better than the other sect, and knows better than anyone else. It doesn't matter if the ideas conflict with science. Faith means not listening to anyone else's argument with an open ear. Quite the contrary.

 

Men and women of faith are praised and held in the highest esteem for being steadfast in closing their minds to ideas that might contaminate the dogma.

 

I find that most visceral attacks against religion are not made in a response to actual incidents of religious people engaging in a "I know better than thou" attitude, but rather, by the conscience of those who reject religion and God.

 

Furthermore, those who attack all religious people, and faiths with a broad-brush are exhibiting the same disrespect, dismissiveness, ignorance, and outright arrogance that they claim to be rallying against.

 

Can you say DC.

[archenemy]

WTF are you talking about?

[Seahawks]

WTF are you talking about?

 

Did I stutter? Dechristo.

[archenemy]

KK is not DC you stuttering idiot.

 

 

I don't know who pissed in your cherios today, but not everyone is out to set you off. And KK makes a fair point, as does CBS; so feel free to add yours, but don't poop on a thread that doesn't need pooping on.

[mattp]

I somewhat agree with you there, Mr. K., but the speaker I heard last night made some arguments that I found not only interesting but also valid. (1) the very nature of "religion" involves faith in things that cannot be proven, (2) the adherent generally believes their belief to be "right" and other beliefs to be "wrong," and (3) throughout history we have seen people imposing moral restrictions or even waging devastating warfare in the name of this "right" vs. "wrong."

 

You could say that the same would be true of any other fanaticism - as for example I believe you have complained about the brutality brought to this world by communists or facists during the 20th century - but the element of faith which underlies the religious crusade is unique and probably exceeds the unshakable ferver of the dedicated communist or facist.

 

The bit about the major religions having been invented by primative peoples was provocative, but not quite as compelling - at least for me. But here too I had to ask myself: might Chritianity or Islam take a different form if Jesus or Mohammed walked the earth in the year 2007? How might our understanding of biology and disease and stuff, or our interconnected world and this great thing called the Internet affect the thinking and revelations of a prophet?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I somewhat agree with you there, Mr. K., but the speaker I heard last night made some arguments that I found not only interesting but also valid. (1) the very nature of "religion" involves faith in things that cannot be proven, (2) the adherent generally believes their belief to be "right" and other beliefs to be "wrong," and (3) throughout history we have seen people imposing moral restrictions or even waging devastating warfare in the name of this "right" vs. "wrong."

 

You could say that the same would be true of any other fanaticism - as for example I believe you have complained about the brutality brought to this world by communists or facists during the 20th century - but the element of faith which underlies the religious crusade is unique and probably exceeds the unshakable ferver of the dedicated communist or facist.

 

The bit about the major religions having been invented by primative peoples was provocative, but not quite as compelling - at least for me. But here too I had to ask myself: might Chritianity or Islam take a different form if Jesus or Mohammed walked the earth in the year 2007? How might our understanding of biology and disease and stuff, or our interconnected world and this great thing called the Internet affect the thinking and revelations of a prophet?

 

I don't think of my religion as "right" and others as "wrong". I do judge individual beliefs as right or wrong.

[Seahawks]

KK is not DC you stuttering idiot.

 

 

I don't know who pissed in your cherios today, but not everyone is out to set you off. And KK makes a fair point, as does CBS; so feel free to add yours, but don't poop on a thread that doesn't need pooping on.

 

 

Why in the hell do you think you know everything??? Look at page two at the top. It is DC and I do know what I'm talking about. So just sit back and shut up sometimes.

[Dechristo]

It is DC and I do know what I'm talking about. So just sit back and shut up sometimes.

 

Excuse me? You presume to know what you're talking about in regard to what?

[archenemy]

KK is not DC you stuttering idiot.

 

 

I don't know who pissed in your cherios today, but not everyone is out to set you off. And KK makes a fair point, as does CBS; so feel free to add yours, but don't poop on a thread that doesn't need pooping on.

Oops, I forgot to include mattp in the list of good point making!

These discussions are my favorite part of spray.

[Seahawks]

It is DC and I do know what I'm talking about. So just sit back and shut up sometimes.

 

Excuse me? You presume to know what you're talking about in regard to what?

 

In regards to your crap aimed at me. and I felt that "Furthermore, those who attack all religious people, and faiths with a broad-brush are exhibiting the same disrespect, dismissiveness, ignorance, and outright arrogance that they claim to be rallying against." summed you up pretty good.

Edited May 22, 2007 by Seahawks

[Dechristo]

There's that lack of ability in reading comprehension and discernment again.

[Seahawks]

There's that lack of ability in reading comprehension and discernment again.

 

Not really. Anytime I post anything you come back to it. So you have developed a pattern, so don't try to explain it away.

[mattp]

I don't think of my religion as "right" and others as "wrong". I do judge individual beliefs as right or wrong.

 

Are you some kind of Unitarian or something?

 

As the guy was arguing last night: either you believe Jesus was the son of god or you don't. If you do believe that, you must also believe that those who do not believe it are wrong. You must believe that you have an important knowledge of the truth that they are lacking. We see nuance and variation within a given sect, but whether you are a Tibetan Buddhist or an Evangelical Christian, there are certain core beliefs that you have accept as "true," no? (I could be wrong, as I never went to divinity school, but I think that is how it works.)

[JayB]

Although I agree with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and other speakers who have made the same arguments, As a non-believer I care less about the particulars of a given religious creed and quite a bit more about the manner in which the adherents conduct themselves. Your true religion - the fundamental beliefs that actually govern your behavior here in the real world where the rubber meets the road - represent your true faith. Quakers - nutty theology but peaceful lives. Fine by me.

 

What puzzles me is that the folks on the Left who spare no effort in excoriating Christian fundamentalists seem to have adopted a much different stance towards Islamists. Despising conservative Christians because they - say - tend to oppose full legal equality for gays makes sense if that's a cause that you are passionately engaged in, but how one can hold these beliefs and at the same time hardly summon a shrug when confronted with the facts concerning the legal status and treatment of gays in countries where Islamic law prevails? Ditto for women's rights, separation of church and state, freedom of the press, and pretty much any other cause that anyone who claims to be a liberal - either in the modern or classical sense - should be concerned with championing around the globe.

 

In one sense, I can understand this in the context of "near enemy" versus "far enemy" thinking, in which they perceive the Christian right to be more threatening because of their capacity to effect political changes here in the US that are at odds with their vision for the country, but I still don't quite understand the relative insouciance that has generally characterized the Left's* response to Islamists and the rise of Islamism. Maybe a self-annointed representative of the Left can explain the incongruity to me.

 

*Honorable exceptions being Christopher Hitches, Salman Rushdie, and a few others.

[mattp]

Who are these leftists who you say are so warm to the fundamentalist islamists? Is this another one of your straw-men, JayB? I've certainly heard plenty of leftists (and not a few from the right, as well) arguing that we should not go invading Islamic nations on a pretext and expect it not to stir anti-American sentiment around the world. But that is a far cry from saying it is OK to make women stay indoors or to stone them to death for adultery, isn't it?

[JayB]

Here's an answer from self-described progressive Muslim.

 

"What historically distinguishes leftwing ideas is their commitment to the poor and dispossessed, and to the fight for equality, anti-racism, anti-colonialism and national self-determination. Herein, perhaps, lies the clue to the emerging unity between sections of the left and sections of the Muslim community that are bearing the brunt of imperialism abroad in terms of brutal military intervention and at home, where justifications for such actions are sought using anti-Muslim rhetoric. In resisting imperialism, Muslims and the left are fighting a common enemy and developing their own ties of friendship forged through struggle and mutual solidarity."

 

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/salma_yaqoob/2006/08/not_so_bright_martin.html.printer.friendly

[archenemy]

I don't think of my religion as "right" and others as "wrong". I do judge individual beliefs as right or wrong.

 

Are you some kind of Unitarian or something?

 

As the guy was arguing last night: either you believe Jesus was the son of god or you don't. If you do believe that, you must also believe that those who do not believe it are wrong. You must believe that you have an important knowledge of the truth that they are lacking. We see nuance and variation within a given sect, but whether you are a Tibetan Buddhist or an Evangelical Christian, there are certain core beliefs that you have accept as "true," no? (I could be wrong, as I never went to divinity school, but I think that is how it works.)

Jesus does not refer to Himself in the Bible as the Son of God, but as the Son of Man.

 

And no, one who believes this does not have to believe others to be wrong about their beliefs. That's where the handy, "I don't know the ways and intentions of God" comes in handy. I do believe in Christ, but I don't believe that God necessarily came to everyone in the same guise. This isn't much of a stretch, is it? I mean, if someone is willing to believe that a person was raised from the dead and asked others to eat of His flesh, is it really that much harder to believe that maybe God sent Buddha to some folks and Shiva to others?

[mattp]

See - I told you I never went to Divinity school. Actually, truth be told, I didn't even take the pre-requisites. I read a page or two of the Bible once, though.

 

But here's where it gets interesting. What is a defined religion - that is like Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, Hasidic Judaism, Sunni Moslem, Mormon, or whatever if it does not involve a set way of looking at the world? You may be a special case there, Archie, as I’m pretty sure the “powers that be” in just about any religion will say that there are some “truths” to it and if you are a Christian, I don’t understand how you could say somebody else has their own truth if they say “Jesus was a normal guy just like you and me.” It is one thing if they say “Jesus doesn’t do it for me” (in other words, “I’m a non-believer,” but don't you say that are wrong if they say “he was nobody” (as in anybody who believes in him might as well believe in Ghosts?). We can split hairs here, or maybe it is something a little more sophisticated than that when we are talking about cherished beliefs, but there are some things that make a Russiain Orthodox a Russian Orthodox, are there not?

[JayB]

 

"What lessons for today?

 

IN CENTRAL ASIA, Lenin and Trotsky were attempting to win a predominantly Muslim peasant population, who were fighting for their national rights, to the banner of world revolution, against a background of the desperate struggle for survival of the first workers’ state. In Britain today, we are attempting to win an oppressed minority of the working class to the banner of socialism.

 

In most senses, ours is a far easier task. The vast majority of Muslims in Britain are part of the working class, and many work in ethnically-mixed workplaces, especially in the public sector. The mass anti-war movement gave a glimpse of the potential for a united movement of the working class, with Muslims playing an integral role. The formation of a new mass workers’ party, campaigning in a class way on both the general issues and against racism and Islamaphobia, would act as an enormous pole of attraction to working-class Muslims at the same time as beginning to cut across racism and prejudice.

 

However, the lack of such a party at the present time encapsulates the difficulties that we face. In the 1990s, the collapse of the regimes that existed in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union provided world capitalism with the opportunity to dismiss socialism as a failure (they falsely equated socialism with these Stalinist regimes). This allowed the ruling classes to conduct an ideological onslaught against the ideas of socialism. The rightwing of the Labour Party, and of social democracy worldwide, used this opportunity to abandon any vestiges of socialism in their programme, and to become clearly capitalist parties.

 

Over a decade after the collapse of Stalinism, a new generation is drawing the conclusion that capitalism is incapable of meeting the needs of humanity – a minority is beginning to draw socialist conclusions. Nonetheless, consciousness still lags behind objective reality – and socialism has not yet become a mass force.

 

Given the vacuum that therefore exists, radical young people are searching for a political alternative. A small minority of young Muslims in Britain are looking towards right-wing political Islamic organisations like Al-Muhajiroun. The lack of alternative offered by such organisations is summed up by their opposition to the anti-war movement because it involved demonstrating alongside non-Muslims. The majority of young radical Muslims were repelled by Al-Muhajiroun and company, and understood the need for a united anti-war movement. The potential to build a strong base for socialists amongst Muslims undoubtedly exists – but only if we both engage and argue the case for socialism."

 

http://www.socialismtoday.org/87/islam.html

 

Plenty more where these came from, kemosabe.

 

[archenemy]

Most religions that I am familiar with, including Christianity (which I have studied at length) prescribe loving and accepting your fellow man. Whether people chose to do so or not is up to them. But their actions should not be the explaination of the religion itself. In other words, just because we see a bunch of intolerant Christians on TV doesn't mean that Christianity itself preaches intolerance.