Poor Paris

[sahib]

If somebody is prepared to fight for a regional power (such as in Middle East) he will recruit youth using porn if necessary,  if religion is not available.  Therefore on this subject you are barking up the wrong tree I am afraid.

That's just sticking your head in the sand. You wouldn't recruit anyone "using porn", because it's not the same thing.

No. I am not sticking my head in the sand. It's just that I find fighting wind mills to be a waste of time.

Certainly porn and religion are not the same thing. What I mean here is that there are other mechanisms to recruit terrorists than religion.

It's sort of like saying that we shouldn't "fight" anti-semitism in the same sense I propose, simply because an anti-semite would just find a different reason to hate Jews (specifically).

No. It is not the same thing.  I know many people who are atheist and against the state of Israel. You don't fight atheism  do you? Or,  we all know very well that the allies went to war with Irak on "not really the truth",  or as some  call it "on pack of lies". We don't say "if only there was no democracy then the Irak war would not happen".

The bottom line is that the religion fills a big gap in the lives of those who need it. I am glad I don't, but that does not warrant me to suggest that if we get rid of it the world would be a beter place. It would not. We can not take the deficiencies of human beings out of the equation. 

 

[mattiasNYC]

Do we need a safe space?

In case I wasn't clear, having a significant (growing), immigrant population that not only rejects your culture but thinks it's OK to kill you, is a security problem.  There are immigrant enclaves in several european nations that refuse to assimilate into their new nation's culture.

The USA is a nation of immigrants, a melting pot where the new Americans shrug off their former identity to embrace the American culture of individual freedoms and opportunity.

Well, first of all, if you want to talk "assimilation" I think the Native Americans have a different opinion about just how that worked out. And if you want to stay current then just go down to Chinatown  in NYC and take a look. Assimilation my butt. We're ok with it though, 'cause of cheap Asian food and counterfeit goods.

I think people assimilate to a degree, and over time and generations. Young immigrants, the second or third generation, in a lot of cultures prefer to 'move on' and take advantage of what the new culture has to offer. Old farts like me try to resist it, and try to get the kids to resist it as well. If you ask me it's futile with few exceptions.

At any rate I just found your phrasing hinting at an argument that looks like you're lumping everyone together into one volatile potential terrorist.

An interesting outlier is Israel with an average 3 children per woman, well above replacement and normal developed world birth rates. I wonder if this is in response to Arafat's old claim that "the womb of the arab woman is his strongest weapon" .  Maybe they heard him.

JR

I'm guessing there is a fair amount of incentive to have many children, religious incentives at the very least.

PS: Yes Andy, Idiocracy is not only funny but a warning for us all. Kind of like a political science fiction documentary. 

Scares the heck out of me that movie. Just watching it and then paying attention to modern culture makes me cringe.

 

[mattiasNYC]

What I mean here is that there are other mechanisms to recruit terrorists than religion.

Well so what? Just because you have a suspicion that they'd use other mechanisms instead of religion doesn't really mean we shouldn't "target" the latter if it is the main mean of recruitment (and it sure appears to be the case).

It's sort of like saying that we shouldn't "fight" anti-semitism in the same sense I propose, simply because an anti-semite would just find a different reason to hate Jews (specifically).

No. It is not the same thing.  I know many people who are atheist and against the state of Israel. You don't fight atheism  do you?

First of all, "Atheism" is simply not subscribing to "theism". There is nothing "in" Atheism that tells anyone to do anything. It says nothing about race, religion, sex, music or anything. It says only that one doesn't subscribe to a religious faith.

Secondly, no, it kind'a is the same thing. I think we should fight anything that is harmful. Just because people find something else doesn't mean we can't fight that as well. One thing doesn't exclude the other.

Or,  we all know very well that the allies went to war with Irak on "not really the truth",  or as some  call it "on pack of lies". We don't say "if only there was no democracy then the Irak war would not happen".

That's because democracy didn't tell anyone to do anything. Religion actually makes statements.

The way you're arguing this issue right now it really looks like you think that any ideology is essentially the same as any other given ideology (or religion). There is no difference at all in their essence or their potential to do good or bad.

Because if there is a difference, then you're heading in the direction I'm talking about.

The bottom line is that the religion fills a big gap in the lives of those who need it. I am glad I don't, but that does not warrant me to suggest that if we get rid of it the world would be a beter place. It would not. We can not take the deficiencies of human beings out of the equation.

I don't understand what these "deficiencies" have to do with this, but I absolutely don't think you can assert that the world wouldn't be better without religion. That's a statement that needs to be justified in my opinion.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Do we need a safe space?

In case I wasn't clear, having a significant (growing), immigrant population that not only rejects your culture but thinks it's OK to kill you, is a security problem.  There are immigrant enclaves in several european nations that refuse to assimilate into their new nation's culture.

The USA is a nation of immigrants, a melting pot where the new Americans shrug off their former identity to embrace the American culture of individual freedoms and opportunity.

Well, first of all, if you want to talk "assimilation" I think the Native Americans have a different opinion about just how that worked out. And if you want to stay current then just go down to Chinatown  in NYC and take a look. Assimilation my butt. We're ok with it though, 'cause of cheap Asian food and counterfeit goods.

There weren't any indians in NJ by the time I got there, but IIRC Leni Lenape (?) was the name of the local tribe (studied all that as a kid). They should have a casino like the tribe up in CT, (or the one here in MS, or the ones....).

I haven't been to china-town in NYC since the '70s, but I suspect it still has a similar ethnic flavor.  I recall when I went to Hong kong, it reminded me of china town but on steroids (much larger).

The people living in NYC china town probably have a better life than they left behind thanks to rule of law, property ownership, the ability to keep at least part of their pay check etc (American values).

When I was a kid growing up in NJ several decades ago there was one chinese kid in my class... He lived up to the stereotype (he was good at math and science).

I think people assimilate to a degree, and over time and generations. Young immigrants, the second or third generation, in a lot of cultures prefer to 'move on' and take advantage of what the new culture has to offer. Old farts like me try to resist it, and try to get the kids to resist it as well. If you ask me it's futile with few exceptions.

opinions (and data) vary.

At any rate I just found your phrasing hinting at an argument that looks like you're lumping everyone together into one volatile potential terrorist.

No but the news every night is revealing concentrations of bad guys in some neighborhoods in France and Belgium, and .... around europe.

An interesting outlier is Israel with an average 3 children per woman, well above replacement and normal developed world birth rates. I wonder if this is in response to Arafat's old claim that "the womb of the arab woman is his strongest weapon" .  Maybe they heard him.

JR

I'm guessing there is a fair amount of incentive to have many children, religious incentives at the very least.

Yes the conservative jews had larger families (8 kids), Liberal-moderate Jews had more like developed nation birth rates. Note: China is relaxing their 1 child policy, even they have demographic concerns about low birth rate (not to mention not enough daughters to go around). 

PS: Yes Andy, Idiocracy is not only funny but a warning for us all. Kind of like a political science fiction documentary. 

Scares the heck out of me that movie. Just watching it and then paying attention to modern culture makes me cringe.

That's a good sign... we should all cringe from watching the world news.

JR

 

[Script]

An interesting outlier is Israel with an average 3 children per woman, well above replacement and normal developed world birth rates. I wonder if this is in response to Arafat's old claim that "the womb of the arab woman is his strongest weapon" .  Maybe they heard him.
[...]

Yes the conservative jews had larger families (8 kids), Liberal-moderate Jews had more like developed nation birth rates. 

No, not in response to Arafat -- much, much older and basically traditional (although the idea of "outnumbering" is probably also involved).

In Israel it's predominantly orthodox Jews who have many children. And while some people from the ultra-orthodox camps not only reject Palestine and Arabs in general, they also reject the secular Israeli state, cos they have that absurd longing to go back to (and settle in) Old Testament times. As a demographic development, such a rapidly growing number of people truly is one challenge of a kind.

 

[mattiasNYC]

The sooner we can stop believing outdated superstitions and placing undue importance on race and ethnicity the better....

 

[sahib]

What I mean here is that there are other mechanisms to recruit terrorists than religion.

Well so what? Just because you have a suspicion that they'd use other mechanisms instead of religion doesn't really mean we shouldn't "target" the latter if it is the main mean of recruitment (and it sure appears to be the case).

So is that if somebody wants to turn terrorist by interpreting  a belief to suit his/her agenda then that is not the belief's fault. You are conveniently ignoring what I said before. If Islam taught terrorism then 1.5 billion people would be on IS side fighting the world by now. 

No. It is not the same thing.  I know many people who are atheist and against the state of Israel. You don't fight atheism  do you?

First of all, "Atheism" is simply not subscribing to "theism". There is nothing "in" Atheism that tells anyone to do anything. It says nothing about race, religion, sex, music or anything. It says only that one doesn't subscribe to a religious faith.

Secondly, no, it kind'a is the same thing. I think we should fight anything that is harmful. Just because people find something else doesn't mean we can't fight that as well. One thing doesn't exclude the other.

Not subscribing to a religion is not a guarantee for one  to be a "good human being". In the same way subscribing to a religion is also not a guarantee for one to be a good human being.

Extreme left wing terrorists of 70s were all atheists and killed many innocent people.  Animal front here in the UK who  are threatening scientists with death are unlikely to be  Muslim, Christian or Jewish. Therefore your claim of "harmful" within the context of religion does not hold.

Also, what does it mean  this "fight the religions" anyway? What are you going to do? Take up arms against those who are observing their belief peacefully under a secular system that they adhere to?  Or are you going to persecute them? I asked the same question before but you seem to conveniently avoid it.

Or,  we all know very well that the allies went to war with Irak on "not really the truth",  or as some  call it "on pack of lies". We don't say "if only there was no democracy then the Irak war would not happen".

That's because democracy didn't tell anyone to do anything. Religion actually makes statements.

The way you're arguing this issue right now it really looks like you think that any ideology is essentially the same as any other given ideology (or religion). There is no difference at all in their essence or their potential to do good or bad.

Because if there is a difference, then you're heading in the direction I'm talking about.

Certainly there is no such thing as "democracy handbook of dos and don'ts". But the what's to be done and not done are decided by those who are in charge and handed down as orders.  In a  democratic system an order can be (and was) issued to bomb an area in full knowing that there will be innocent civilian casualties. How are you going to reconcile with that?

Religion certainly makes statements but in the case of Islamic belief you show me where it says you have to terrorise innocent people. I told you before even in a state of war the civilians, particularly the women and children are not legitimate targets. 

I am not arguing all the ideologies are the same. All I am arguing is that you are basing your opinion on Islam (or any other religion) on the basis of a group of people's  twisted interpretation.  You are again conveniently ignoring what I said previously. If Islam told to terrorise people, let alone civilians and in particular woman and children then there would have been 1.5billion taking up arms along side IS against the world. 

For you or somebody else t superficially google verses from Koran and then coming up to argue is not any different then these lunitics taking them literally (which I doubt they are even reading it) and acting accordingly.

However, I do not appear to be defending Islam here as I am not. But I am trying to make a clear statement that  claim of getting rid of the religions is somehow going to make the world a better place is false.  Because as I said before there are people who observe their beliefs and live peacefully under a secular law which they respect.  Even suggesting to take this right away is a direct  contravention of human rights.

The bottom line is that the religion fills a big gap in the lives of those who need it. I am glad I don't, but that does not warrant me to suggest that if we get rid of it the world would be a beter place. It would not. We can not take the deficiencies of human beings out of the equation.

I don't understand what these "deficiencies" have to do with this, but I absolutely don't think you can assert that the world wouldn't be better without religion. That's a statement that needs to be justified in my opinion.

There are gazillions of people with mental and physiological short comings who  find peace and strength in  religion (equally there are also gazillions  of perfectly healthy people who find peace and strength in religion). There are former criminals, robbers, murderers whose only reason to stop that life style is finding the "god". You tell me how you are going to replace this mechanism for these people.

 

[sahib]

Do we need a safe space?

In case I wasn't clear, having a significant (growing), immigrant population that not only rejects your culture but thinks it's OK to kill you, is a security problem.  There are immigrant enclaves in several european nations that refuse to assimilate into their new nation's culture.

The USA is a nation of immigrants, a melting pot where the new Americans shrug off their former identity to embrace the American culture of individual freedoms and opportunity.

Well, first of all, if you want to talk "assimilation" I think the Native Americans have a different opinion about just how that worked out. And if you want to stay current then just go down to Chinatown  in NYC and take a look. Assimilation my butt. We're ok with it though, 'cause of cheap Asian food and counterfeit goods.

I think people assimilate to a degree, and over time and generations. Young immigrants, the second or third generation, in a lot of cultures prefer to 'move on' and take advantage of what the new culture has to offer. Old farts like me try to resist it, and try to get the kids to resist it as well. If you ask me it's futile with few exceptions.

At any rate I just found your phrasing hinting at an argument that looks like you're lumping everyone together into one volatile potential terrorist.

In our modern day I think  "assimilation" would be the wrong word to chose. Integration is the appropriate one.

I am a first generation immigrant and I have been living in the UK for just over 29 years now.  "Shrugging off" my former identity was neither necessary nor possible. I have a dual nationality. To those I have been known for a long time I am just one of them, to somebody new I am just the foreign guy. I do not mean this in a negative way. That's just the way it is and I am perfectly comfortable with that.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'll leave the religious debate to you guys... 

I would like to hear some opinions about the recent soccer match between Greece and Turkey. During a moment of silence to respect the Paris dead, some people in the crowd boo'd and chanted Allah Akbar. It seems at least a few were rooting for the wrong side (I don't mean Greece).

I realize public opinion is not clear cut and there are shades of gray, but there seems to a larger cultural problem than just a few isolated jihadi, namely all those who tolerate and/or support them.

JR

 

[Andy Peters]

In Israel it's predominantly orthodox Jews who have many children.

if you look at birthrates among those who consider themselves fundamentalist of any religion, you'll see that they are much higher than the general population. It's true among Orthodox Jews, it's true among Mormons (and especially the cultish offshoot run by the pedophile Warren Jeffs), it's true of any number of Protestant Christian faiths (check out the "Quiverful" movement if you want to be scared), it's certainly true of those who consider themselves orthodox Catholics.

That's the fastest way to grow a religion: you breed it.  Getting adults, with education and experience in the real world, to join a batshit orthodox cult is rather difficult.

And the children are raised in the faith and they know nothing of other faiths and they don't even know enough to question the faith.

 

[JohnRoberts]

In Israel it's predominantly orthodox Jews who have many children.

if you look at birthrates among those who consider themselves fundamentalist of any religion, you'll see that they are much higher than the general population. It's true among Orthodox Jews, it's true among Mormons (and especially the cultish offshoot run by the pedophile Warren Jeffs), it's true of any number of Protestant Christian faiths (check out the "Quiverful" movement if you want to be scared), it's certainly true of those who consider themselves orthodox Catholics.

That's the fastest way to grow a religion: you breed it. 

Smarter than the Shakers religion. They were celibate.... really, you can't make that up.  ;D

JR

Getting adults, with education and experience in the real world, to join a batsh*t orthodox cult is rather difficult.

And the children are raised in the faith and they know nothing of other faiths and they don't even know enough to question the faith.

 

[mattiasNYC]

I apologize for the long post........

So is that if somebody wants to turn terrorist by interpreting  a belief to suit his/her agenda then that is not the belief's fault. You are conveniently ignoring what I said before. If Islam taught terrorism then 1.5 billion people would be on IS side fighting the world by now. 

I'm not ignoring it, it just doesn't make sense logically. What you are implying seems to me to basically say that anything that is written can't be the cause for people's actions. Fair enough, and that then applies to all ideologies. But the problem with that line of reasoning is that people actually do get their ideas from somewhere, and since they do get them from the representatives of religion as well as scripture itself they can't be ignored.

If you want to argue that it's all misinterpretation then it's a rubbish text to begin with. If you really mean "don't kill" then just write that - no if's or but's. But that's typically not how religious scripture goes as far as I know. Further more I still maintain that the fundamental tenet of these religions, the one that actually makes all this nonsense possible, is that you should trust and obey the lord and do his will. That basic tenet is just telling people to bow to authority and turn off their brains. Exactly the way people in power want it to be. Exactly the way it shouldn't be. As long as the concept of heaven and hell persists and as long as people want to end up in the right place they'll try to do what god wants them to do, and that's a big problem.

Not subscribing to a religion is not a guarantee for one  to be a "good human being". In the same way subscribing to a religion is also not a guarantee for one to be a good human being.

Extreme left wing terrorists of 70s were all atheists and killed many innocent people.  Animal front here in the UK who  are threatening scientists with death are unlikely to be  Muslim, Christian or Jewish. Therefore your claim of "harmful" within the context of religion does not hold.

You start the above by arguing something I never proposed. I never said not being religious makes you a good person. I don't know where you got that from. I also quite clearly explained the difference between having a belief and not having one. Being an atheist doesn't promote anything. It's not a belief system. "Extreme left wing terrorists" that happened to be atheists didn't commit their acts based on atheist tenets, because they don't exist. Your logic is just faulty.

Also, what does it mean  this "fight the religions" anyway? What are you going to do? Take up arms against those who are observing their belief peacefully under a secular system that they adhere to?  Or are you going to persecute them? I asked the same question before but you seem to conveniently avoid it.

I thought I was clear that we shouldn't persecute people for thought crimes...??? I think what we should do is promote criticism of religion in media, and try to fight what I think is a special status religion has that it shouldn't have. No, your opinions on religion aren't something I have to respect, just like I don't have to respect your political opinion or your opinion on film or music or race. And we should absolutely draw a clear line for what states should accommodate. I definitely don't believe in teaching creation in science class, or making continuous concessions for religious expression in public/official/collective settings. I think it's fine if a student wants to go pray during school hours, as long as it doesn't affect other students. Same deal with diet. And prayers shouldn't be held by people hired by the state either. In a lot of cases where this comes up the religious become borderline irate because they think they have the right to all of this, but all it is is based on a belief that makes little sense.

So 'no', no force, but also no concessions in addition to being able to actually discuss this in media and elsewhere and expose it for what it is. Some people go their whole lives thinking it's literally true simply because everyone in their community has exactly the same opinion. Education is key here.

Certainly there is no such thing as "democracy handbook of dos and don'ts". But the what's to be done and not done are decided by those who are in charge and handed down as orders.  In a  democratic system an order can be (and was) issued to bomb an area in full knowing that there will be innocent civilian casualties. How are you going to reconcile with that?

You keep conflating things that promote acts and things that don't. What's there to literally "reconcile"??? Those politicians might have an ideology that as vile or worse than religion and then it too should be fought.

For you or somebody else t superficially google verses from Koran and then coming up to argue is not any different then these lunitics taking them literally (which I doubt they are even reading it) and acting accordingly.

The fundamental tenet I mentioned is true in all three Abrahamic religions as far as I know. As for the rest it's certainly odd that you would on the one hand say the fundamentalists have the wrong interpretation yet then say they are "taking them literally". Well, which is it? Is it the literal reading that's the problem or the interpretation? If it's the former then the text is the problem.

What you say is exactly what Jews and Christians say as well. The error is always on the part of the person reading because the interpretation is wrong. If Paul writes that women should shut up in church, and certainly not even enter it if it's that time of the month because then they're dirty, then that's what he writes. It's pretty hard to come up with an alternative interpretation of that, though religious people bend over backwards to have their cake and eat it too all the time. Same deal with what to do with gay people.

I am trying to make a clear statement that  claim of getting rid of the religions is somehow going to make the world a better place is false.  Because as I said before there are people who observe their beliefs and live peacefully under a secular law which they respect.  Even suggesting to take this right away is a direct  contravention of human rights.

It's your opinion that getting rid of religion won't make the world better. I think it would.

And I'd appreciate it if you stopped your strawmen. I didn't suggest taking their rights to observe beliefs peacefully away. But even if I did merely suggesting something shouldn't be a crime.

There are gazillions of people with mental and physiological short comings who  find peace and strength in  religion (equally there are also gazillions  of perfectly healthy people who find peace and strength in religion). There are former criminals, robbers, murderers whose only reason to stop that life style is finding the "god". You tell me how you are going to replace this mechanism for these people.

There's hiking in nature, there's music, sculpture, painting, dancing, making love, exercising, cooking, eating and on and on.... Substituting one addiction with the addiction of religion is basically akin to giving regular treatment to a symptom while the cause of it all persists. If we're going to do that then at least pick something that is rooted in reality and void of the nonsense that (in my opinion) leads to these bad views and actions.

 

[mattiasNYC]

In Israel it's predominantly orthodox Jews who have many children.

if you look at birthrates among those who consider themselves fundamentalist of any religion, you'll see that they are much higher than the general population. It's true among Orthodox Jews, it's true among Mormons (and especially the cultish offshoot run by the pedophile Warren Jeffs), it's true of any number of Protestant Christian faiths (check out the "Quiverful" movement if you want to be scared), it's certainly true of those who consider themselves orthodox Catholics.

That's the fastest way to grow a religion: you breed it. 

Smarter than the Shakers religion. They were celibate.... really, you can't make that up.  ;D

JR

lol.....

 

[mattiasNYC]

I'll leave the religious debate to you guys... 

I would like to hear some opinions about the recent soccer match between Greece and Turkey. During a moment of silence to respect the Paris dead, some people in the crowd boo'd and chanted Allah Akbar. It seems at least a few were rooting for the wrong side (I don't mean Greece).

I realize public opinion is not clear cut and there are shades of gray, but there seems to a larger cultural problem than just a few isolated jihadi, namely all those who tolerate and/or support them.

JR

I think I agree with you. I think making noise during a silent minute is a bit.... petty.... in most cases. I certainly have been part of events where there was a silent minute held for a reason and I sort of rolled my eyes at it because to me it was just nonsense, but I wouldn't make a bunch of noise to disturb it. I think it'd have been unnecessarily disruptive and offensive, counterproductive, and just a waste of energy.

And, of course, as you probably can tell by now I'm an Atheist, so you can probably figure out what I think about chanting "God Is Great" specifically.....

So, for the record; I keep quiet during quiet moments in honor of whatever if I'm part of the event, and I go visit churches and religious ceremonies and don't cause a stink even though I'm an Atheist, because it'd be dumb and ludicrous.

 

[sahib]

I apologize for the long post........

No apologies necessary. Now its my turn  ;D .

However, I feel the need to clarify again that I am not promoting religions. In fact as I said before I do not do religions.  Putting it bluntly, I don't give a tosh. But my view point is from the fact that they have their purpose and have a considerable positive impact on our daily life. Also negative of course but I am not cutting off the nose despite the face.

I'll start with your comment.

.......If you want to argue that it's all misinterpretation then it's a rubbish text to begin with.....

There are very little cases that work like 2+2 equals four in theology. Even that changes in a Turkish city of Kayseri if you asked the question.  The answer would be a counter question . " When? buying or selling?"  ;D  . However, for you to make such  a comment on something that you clearly know nothing about is equally amusing.

Our civil law is nothing but full of interpretations. That is why we have lawyers and courts over courts. I personally have been in a court (litigation with clients) twice and was surprised how grey the area can be. So why would that be a problem in theology?

I thought I was clear that we shouldn't persecute people for thought crimes...??? I think what we should do is promote criticism of religion in media, and try to fight what I think is a special status religion has that it shouldn't have. No, your opinions on religion aren't something I have to respect, just like I don't have to respect your political opinion or your opinion on film or music or race.

I am certainly  not expecting any respect for my opinions, let alone from you. As long as I am not losing respect to others in a discussion. However, I would welcome more criticism of religions in the media.

I definitely don't believe in teaching creation in science class, or making continuous concessions for religious expression in public/official/collective settings. ....

I totally agree here. I am a secular person.  It should be kept at university level as theological studies. If a person has interest then he/she can study without being rammed down his/her throat starting from the primary school.

In terms of religious expression in public offices is a difficult one. I have no problems with a Sikh person wearing turban or a muslim female wearing headscarf (it is also called turban in Turkish) as I consider these to be not any different than wearing jeans or bandanas. However, covering in black top to bottom with a veil on the face (which has no basis in Islam) is something that makes me extremely uncomfortable and certainly should not be allowed in public offices. I of course have no problem with people wearing cross either.

Same deal with diet. And prayers shouldn't be held by people hired by the state either. In a lot of cases where this comes up the religious become borderline irate because they think they have the right to all of this, but all it is  based on a belief that makes little sense.

Again agreed.
However, my objection is to your last statement. It makes little sense to you but not to the person who believes in it.

Certainly there is no such thing as "democracy handbook of dos and don'ts". But the what's to be done and not done are decided by those who are in charge and handed down as orders.  In a  democratic system an order can be (and was) issued to bomb an area in full knowing that there will be innocent civilian casualties. How are you going to reconcile with that?

You keep conflating things that promote acts and things that don't. What's there to literally "reconcile"??? Those politicians might have an ideology that as vile or worse than religion and then it too should be fought.

No I am not. You are conveniently missing the issue. That was in response to your claim that democracy didn't tell what to do or not to do.  But at the end of the day the politician acts on the basis of his/her interpretation of the law. So we question both and come to e decision whether the politician has misinterpreted or not. Why should that be a problem in a religious text?

........................
The fundamental tenet I mentioned is true in all three Abrahamic religions as far as I know. As for the rest it's certainly odd that you would on the one hand say the fundamentalists have the wrong interpretation yet then say they are "taking them literally". Well, which is it? Is it the literal reading that's the problem or the interpretation? If it's the former then the text is the problem.

You have a point. However, this was not deliberate. It really means zooming in and taking the bits that suits the individual's aim. In other words disregarding the wider context. I do not mean to appear to be an expert on the subject of Islam. In most cases I am the same as you are, as far as I know. But I have a good grasp of the fundamentals.

What you say is exactly what Jews and Christians say as well. The error is always on the part of the person reading because the interpretation is wrong. If Paul writes that women should shut up in church, and certainly not even enter it if it's that time of the month because then they're dirty, then that's what he writes. It's pretty hard to come up with an alternative interpretation of that, though religious people bend over backwards to have their cake and eat it too all the time. Same deal with what to do with gay people.

I am certainly not suggesting that the error is always on the part of the person's reading. I can not make a comment on Christian or Jewish faiths but I too have problems with certain issues in Islamic belief. However, if I can illuminate you on the issue of gays is that there is nothing  in Koran to suggest that the gays should be killed as some morons would claim otherwise. It mentions of a particular society in time which have gone too far with same sex relation and their destruction. I do not have a particular problem with that and I am sure some scholars would come up with a reconciliation with today's life style.  Many of our close friends are gay and we were the top table guests for the first civil partnership that took place in a synagogue in the UK. Incidentally, the Rabbi who carried out the service actually investigated the subject for a year and concluded that the  religion mentions of "friends" but not specifically as "two opposite sex". So we have a good reference on this too.

There are gazillions of people with mental and physiological short comings who  find peace and strength in  religion (equally there are also gazillions  of perfectly healthy people who find peace and strength in religion). There are former criminals, robbers, murderers whose only reason to stop that life style is finding the "god". You tell me how you are going to replace this mechanism for these people.

There's hiking in nature, there's music, sculpture, painting, dancing, making love, exercising, cooking, eating and on and on.... Substituting one addiction with the addiction of religion is basically akin to giving regular treatment to a symptom while the cause of it all persists. If we're going to do that then at least pick something that is rooted in reality and void of the nonsense that (in my opinion) leads to these bad views and actions.

I would normally consider this statement to be arrogant but to give you the benefit of the doubt I'll say "ignorant". It is obvious that you either spend your entire time among robots or do not have any human contact.

You suggest that a person who has religious beliefs lacks of these qualities. What happens when music, sculpture, painting etc. are not enough to respond to person's spiritual needs?

I draw my views from my personal experiences of meeting with people and let me give you some real life examples.

I'll start with the keyboard playerin a band that I played with during late 70s and early 80s. He was an atheist.  Educated in a  college with American roots and a very intellectual guy.  But with huge inner problems. After I moved to UK his troubles got so bad that he found sanctuary in turning to religion (Islam). He seems to be doing fine now.

In one of my visits to US I met a musician of a pretty famous band. He told me that he was living so on the edge that he could only find the way out by turning to Jesus. Don't ask me what that means. But all I know is that he is happy with his life.

This is a tragic one. Again few years back I got to know another classical musician. A talent that one can only dream of. While he was on tour his father was abusing his children. For him the only way he could cope with this pain  was to turn to Jesus and praying.

This is equally tragic.  This guy lost 8Kg of 24 ct gold in stock market. He can teach you a few arts and two as he is a jewellery maker. He told me that the only way for him to stop killing himself was to believing that because he got involved in interest (forbidden in Islam) he was being punished. So to ease his pain he turned to praying.

Now, you tell me how you are going to fill the gap in these people with your only way forward atheism or with your hiking, or cooking. Go and tell the guy "never mind all that god sh*t, let me introduce you to atheism and cooking and tell you that you have been a d*ck in the first place by playing stock market with 8Kg gold. How is that going to ease his pain? How is it going to make the world a better place for him?

Atheism works for you. Then that's great. But that does not mean that it will work for everybody. Yes I believe in education too, and gazillions of more times than you can ever do as I also taught and teaching is a bit of a family business in our greater family. But there are times that is not enough. The spirituality steps in. As Abbey said some time ago it helps people cope with the reality of death.  It helps them ease their pain.

 

[Spiritworks]

The problem with any religious belief is when the adherents claim that they are the only correct belief system and that anyone else who doesn't agree/convert/submit is wrong and worthy of punishment, whether it is here on earth or in some eternal damnation. History is rife with examples of unspeakable violence from just about any religious belief system you can name but, most notably, the "big three".  All in the name of their god.
Mattias,  guess what? Atheism is a belief system, therefore also a type of  religion.  Most atheists are just as vocal that they are the only truth as all of the other belief systems that claim the same. Thank - whatever - that, so far, they haven't taken up the violence on the level of the "big three".

 

[Script]

The problem with any religious belief is when the adherents claim that they are the only correct belief system and that anyone else who doesn't agree/convert/submit is wrong and worthy of punishment [...]

Thanks for bringing that up. I'd even drop the word *religious* in that sentence.

 

[mattiasNYC]

There are very little cases that work like 2+2 equals four in theology. Even that changes in a Turkish city of Kayseri if you asked the question.  The answer would be a counter question . " When? buying or selling?"  ;D  . However, for you to make such  a comment on something that you clearly know nothing about is equally amusing.

Well, it's a bit presumptuous of you to say I know nothing about it, don't you think?

Secondly, I partially based my comment on what you said, which was that the text needs to be interpreted. I just don't think the positives outweigh the negatives.

Our civil law is nothing but full of interpretations. That is why we have lawyers and courts over courts. I personally have been in a court (litigation with clients) twice and was surprised how grey the area can be. So why would that be a problem in theology?

But scriptures are talking about (supposedly) the word and will of a supreme being, which subjects us all to his whim. He is the ultimate authority. Law is something we humans create together. Do you not see the difference there? In one case we can change things, in the other we cannot. There's a huge difference between debating god's commandments and our own desires.

In terms of religious expression in public offices is a difficult one. I have no problems with a Sikh person wearing turban or a muslim female wearing headscarf (it is also called turban in Turkish) as I consider these to be not any different than wearing jeans or bandanas. However, covering in black top to bottom with a veil on the face (which has no basis in Islam) is something that makes me extremely uncomfortable and certainly should not be allowed in public offices. I of course have no problem with people wearing cross either.

I agree that it is a tricky issue. Personally I'm against covering up in situations where identity needs to be established. Other than that I don't see where, how and why to draw the line. I'm open to suggestions, but I don't really see a solution to the problem of where to draw it.

You are conveniently missing the issue. That was in response to your claim that democracy didn't tell what to do or not to do.  But at the end of the day the politician acts on the basis of his/her interpretation of the law. So we question both and come to e decision whether the politician has misinterpreted or not. Why should that be a problem in a religious text?

Democracy is a means to make decisions on what actions to take and how to govern resources etc. Any fact that is brought up in a democratic context can be discussed and verified. But at the end of the day the facts brought up only serve to make our decision making process better. In other words if we want (in 2002) to argue the merits for invading Iraq based on it having WMD stockpiles posing an imminent threat then the two issues are a) is that a fact, and b) if it is, is invasion the best option. The fact is what it is, and the decision is the result of all our opinions on it and subsequent votes (ultimately).

A religious text doesn't work that way. Religion works by proclaiming unequivocal truths. God exists , for example. There's no nuance in that statement. Do what god wants you to do and you go to heaven: No nuance. Don't and you go to hell and suffer for eternity... No nuance... none of those are subject to interpretation and voting. Those are proclamations made by religious authorities about the supreme authority to whom we all are ultimately held accountable.

So when a politician says "I think we should invade Iraq because it has WMDs" it has nothing to do with the democratic process. There is nothing in that process that makes any claim about invading Iraq, abortion or soda container sizes. Nothing. Religious leaders however do make absolute statements, and they rest those on their interpretations of scripture, which in turn does say some pretty outrageous things, which is criticized by some as being "too literal".... well, it says what it says, as opposed to democracy and Atheism which say close to nothing in and by themselves. They just don't compare, in principle.

The fundamental tenet I mentioned is true in all three Abrahamic religions as far as I know. As for the rest it's certainly odd that you would on the one hand say the fundamentalists have the wrong interpretation yet then say they are "taking them literally". Well, which is it? Is it the literal reading that's the problem or the interpretation? If it's the former then the text is the problem.

You have a point. However, this was not deliberate. It really means zooming in and taking the bits that suits the individual's aim. In other words disregarding the wider context. I do not mean to appear to be an expert on the subject of Islam. In most cases I am the same as you are, as far as I know. But I have a good grasp of the fundamentals.

Sure, I agree that one can cherry-pick scripture and come up with something not only benign but also mostly beneficial. My point in a broader context is that we don't need religion to get those positives, but that religion is unique in providing specifically religiously mandated negatives.

And by the way, I'm absolutely not assuming that you agree with any of the religious views I'm criticizing. Nor am I specifically pointing out Islamic nonsense.

There are gazillions of people with mental and physiological short comings who  find peace and strength in  religion (equally there are also gazillions  of perfectly healthy people who find peace and strength in religion). There are former criminals, robbers, murderers whose only reason to stop that life style is finding the "god". You tell me how you are going to replace this mechanism for these people.

There's hiking in nature, there's music, sculpture, painting, dancing, making love, exercising, cooking, eating and on and on.... Substituting one addiction with the addiction of religion is basically akin to giving regular treatment to a symptom while the cause of it all persists. If we're going to do that then at least pick something that is rooted in reality and void of the nonsense that (in my opinion) leads to these bad views and actions.

I would normally consider this statement to be arrogant but to give you the benefit of the doubt I'll say "ignorant". It is obvious that you either spend your entire time among robots or do not have any human contact.

You suggest that a person who has religious beliefs lacks of these qualities. What happens when music, sculpture, painting etc. are not enough to respond to person's spiritual needs?

Hold on there a second tiger.... You were the one who brought up "mental and physiological short comings", so "lacking" something seems to be your basic premise, not mine.

As for "spiritual needs" you'd have to define exactly what that is before I can answer it. I find more.... "poetic non-religious spirituality" (for lack of more vague fluffy nomenclature) in scientific knowledge than in religion. FAR more. But who knows if that's what you're talking about.... "spiritual" is a tricky word.

Now, you tell me how you are going to fill the gap in these people with your only way forward atheism or with your hiking, or cooking. Go and tell the guy "never mind all that god sh*t, let me introduce you to atheism and cooking and tell you that you have been a d*ck in the first place by playing stock market with 8Kg gold. How is that going to ease his pain? How is it going to make the world a better place for him?

First of all, we can all offer up anecdotal evidence, and I'm not sure we'll really find "the truth" by listing them.

Secondly, I think there's a huge difference bewtween someone who simply is in a slump, even a deep one, and someone who is actually 'damaged', in a physical sense. For the former I do actually maintain that you can do something else, something other than religion, to feel better. I mean, you can read stories pretty regularly about people who were in the thick of business and had extremely stressful lives and became very unhappy, and their responses ranged from taking up Yoga and meditation to moving out into a small cabin in the middle of nowhere (well, nature to be specific). No religion required. Their lives were improved.

For the second category I can actually offer two anecdotes: At one time I ended up with a roommate who set off alarm bells in the back of my head when applying for a room, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt. He kept telling me how he was re-born and how awesome that was, but it felt contrived and weird. I allowed him to move in, and of course it turned out that he had been saved from drugs by religion. It took about a month and a half until the apartment started to smell weird. I thought he was just somewhat unclean. Then stuff started disappearing from my room. Then he missed rent. He finally moved out, and when cleaning the room it was filled with spoons and lighters. I don't do drugs so I actually had to google that stuff to get what that was. So, that guy was seriously "broken" and religion didn't fix him one bit. All it did was fill him with a vision of the universe that wasn't real. When that crumbled he was left with his illness because all that was treated was the symptom.

I also have a friend who went from drugs to something else, and so far it's been "working". But I'm always fearing that he'll fall pray to his addictive nature. Fortunately, he put his trust in modern science and got meds to even him out. So he can now function quite well as long as he's on them.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Mattias,  guess what? Atheism is a belief system, therefore also a type of  religion.

No offense, but that's just nonsense.

Just look at the root of the word, and compare it to the word "moral" for example:

"Moral" = is moral
"Immoral" = the opposite of moral
"Amoral" = morality doesn't apply

"Theism" = Belief in a god
"Atheism" = Belief does not apply

If "Atheism" is a belief system, then please tell me what beliefs I have, and what beliefs all atheists share. I'm eager to hear just what they are!

And calling it "a type of religion" is just dumb. If any belief is "a type of religion", then seeing that all people have some sort of belief system, all people are ultimately "religious". The only thing calling Atheism "religion" does is erode the word "religion" so it is no longer meaningful.

Most atheists are just as vocal that they are the only truth as all of the other belief systems that claim the same. Thank - whatever - that, so far, they haven't taken up the violence on the level of the "big three".

I don't know "most atheists" just as I don't know "most religious people", and I doubt you do either. The only thing we have to go on then is the tenets that the respective groups adhere to. "Theists" believe in a god according to a specific set of beliefs, a "religion". We can look at that religion and learn something about what those beliefs are. Atheists are people who aren't theists. You tell me what that means, because other than what I said I have no idea.

 

[mattiasNYC]

The problem with any religious belief is when the adherents claim that they are the only correct belief system and that anyone else who doesn't agree/convert/submit is wrong and worthy of punishment [...]

Thanks for bringing that up. I'd even drop the word *religious* in that sentence.

But I mean.... Isn't just the word "belief" implying that one is convinced of something? And why would you be convinced of something if you don't think it is correct?