Religion

[John Blutarsky]

' A lighthouse is more useful than a church.' - Benjamin Franklin.

[Mr Scruff]

I'll try and answer this as respectfully as possible...

 

I really struggle to extend the same courtesy as I was brought up within christianity and only through living life outwith the boundaries of religion, found out what a fraud I had been fed virtually from birth. I remember well being told (NOT by my family but by my peers) that we had to fight with the pupils of the local Catholic school. Now since my next door neighbour (and best pal) went to Catholic school, I got a little confused. You can tell the same story all through the world all over the world whether it be Sunni and Shia Muslims in various Arab states, Tamil Hindu's v Sinhali Buddists in Sri Lanka, Protestants (spit) v Catholics in Glasgow or Belfast or Jews v Muslims in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

 

Religon tries to control people based on frankly ridiculous beleif. The 'protest' against gay marriage outside Holyrood is a classic example of the bigotry that they perpetuate. Quite frankly, bigots like this make me sick.

I find there to be an irony in that you'll openly spit on one denomination and then condemn bigotry. I'm not calling you a bigot, but I find the irony curious.

 

I'm 100% with those who want no special status for religion, and it's implied severance of any links between religions and state. As ever with these things, it's a question of power and control, and religions should have none. However, I'm also 100% behind the notion that people should be free to practice their religious faith (I'm sure this is enshrined in the Human Rights Act?). The state should not legislate on belief.

 

To be perhaps controversial, atheism is a belief as much as theism. Prominent atheist writers and philosophers will acknowledge this. Logical Positivism, or Constructive Empiricism suggest that only what you can observe and logically demonstrate matters. You can't disprove the existence of an omnipotent being therefore discounting it involves belief, rather than fact or proof. And a 'my belief is better than your belief' attitude is the root of intolerance as much as anything.

 

This is my view. Intolerance is at the root of many of the world's evils, not religion per se. With intolerance comes the ability to demonise and dehumanise other human beings (casual examples of which we can see on this forum) and the subsequent perpetration of bigotry and worse.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Mr Scruff

[Blackpool Jags]

Although I might come across as being against the practising of religious faith, I do believe that everyone has the choice of what they want to do in this respect. I do counsel against, however, the practice of indoctrination of very young children - something carried out by all the major religions: christenings etc. In my view it's an atrocity to be striking the fear of god into children by having their young, immature minds filled with the notion of hell fire and stuff like this which effectively paralyses their otherwise free thought processes. That's why I think a minimum age of at least 16 should be applied before full participation in the dogmas of any faith should be permitted.

 

Since the 3 Abrahamic religions take their cue from scriptures written, seemingly, in very dark ages - from an educationally enlightened point at any rate - it is little surprise that their teachings are riddled with prejudice: homophobia, sexism, the notion that disabled people are being punished in this life for sins committed in a previous life etc etc. This sort of dogma is not simply outmoded, it's downright offensive and highly dangerous when let loose on some of the cranks who call themselves preachers, or god's representatives on earth; reference suicide bombings, the murder of 'infidels', the rape and torture of children in the care of nuns and priests (and their protection by the Catholic church), the propagation of 'god's word by the various christian shamans operating in Africa stating that condoms don't prevent HIV/Aids, the outlawing of birth control in the Phillippines leading to mass malnutrition suffered by unsustainably large families there who fear eternal damnation visited upon them by their 'loving' god as a consequence of their trangression against His word.

 

The list of heinous treatments of the congregations is endless. Should these rascals be allowed to continue to practise given the catalogue of atrocities which we can pin on them? Well, that's for society to decide I suppose. But in truth, while people are repressed, psychologically, by fear of retribution from the jurisprudence then I reckon only (faith-free) education and empirical-based science offer any hope of the world's various societies being able to cast off the shackles of orgainised superstition.

 

As a sidenote, I was always a bit curious as to why God decided not to crack on to his shamans on earth that the world was in fact round(ish), and left it to scientists to work that out. Poor old Galileo et al; if only they'd been allowed the freedom to take us forward we might have got there a bit sooner. Just glad I wasn't around in the days when the clergy really rooled.

[Norman]

So what's the solution?

 

Do we outlaw religion, burn the temples and synagogues and persecute any "wrong-thinkers" that refuse to repent their faith? We could really gain the moral high ground by burning religious texts or effigies.

 

Of course, in order to do so we would first have to start a campaign in the media suggestion that these "religious nut-cases" were a threat to our way of life and refuse to conform to our practices and beliefs. We could also instil a fear in the public that they all hold extremist views and are responsible for all the ills and conflicts of society.

We've already started the process with the Muslims, so it can't be that hard to extend it to other faiths.

[Blackpool Jags]

So what's the solution?

 

Do we outlaw religion, burn the temples and synagogues and persecute any "wrong-thinkers" that refuse to repent their faith? We could really gain the moral high ground by burning religious texts or effigies.

 

Of course, in order to do so we would first have to start a campaign in the media suggestion that these "religious nut-cases" were a threat to our way of life and refuse to conform to our practices and beliefs. We could also instil a fear in the public that they all hold extremist views and are responsible for all the ills and conflicts of society.

We've already started the process with the Muslims, so it can't be that hard to extend it to other faiths.

 

No, as I've suggested before, we need to regulate these organisations. There should be an accreditation system which would require scrutiny of any oraganisation which wished to be licenced. Much the same, really, as nursing homes, educational establishments, charities etc which are required to conform to basic, and in many cases, rigorous standards of quality compliance. Failure to meet set criteria would result in sanctions and, ultimately, withdrawal of the licence to practise. It's good enough for every other other organisation where health, wellbeing and welfare is entrusted in them; religious corporations which, and let's put it mildly, have a question or two to answer, should be treated no differently. I can't see why exemption from accreditation and scrutiny should be a problem for faith type bodies who practise without detriment to their members/clients.

[danish jag]

By loving the kids - in an entirely non Catholic priest type way, of course, you ARE loving the God!

 

Seriously, though, as Norman said ALL religion is not bad and ALL science is not good, but just by reading this thread I can tell that the most bigoted and closed minded indivisuals are those attacking religion and not supporting it.

 

Incidentally, Hitler, Stalin and Kim Jung Il (or any other member of the North Korean Kim family) are and were some of the most odious and dangerous men the modern world has known. All, AFAIK, were athiests - do we get to ban them too?

 

Hitler was a Catholic throughout his life. He was never ex-communicated by the church, where as it did not hesitate to ex-communicate Communists en masse.

[GrantB]

I find there to be an irony in that you'll openly spit on one denomination and then condemn bigotry. I'm not calling you a bigot, but I find the irony curious.

 

I'm 100% with those who want no special status for religion, and it's implied severance of any links between religions and state. As ever with these things, it's a question of power and control, and religions should have none. However, I'm also 100% behind the notion that people should be free to practice their religious faith (I'm sure this is enshrined in the Human Rights Act?). The state should not legislate on belief.

 

To be perhaps controversial, atheism is a belief as much as theism. Prominent atheist writers and philosophers will acknowledge this. Logical Positivism, or Constructive Empiricism suggest that only what you can observe and logically demonstrate matters. You can't disprove the existence of an omnipotent being therefore discounting it involves belief, rather than fact or proof. And a 'my belief is better than your belief' attitude is the root of intolerance as much as anything.

 

This is my view. Intolerance is at the root of many of the world's evils, not religion per se. With intolerance comes the ability to demonise and dehumanise other human beings (casual examples of which we can see on this forum) and the subsequent perpetration of bigotry and worse.

 

Just to clarify I put the (spit) bit in as I was brought up as one and spent every Sunday for the first 16 years of my life being taken to church, not for any bigoted reason.

 

I was a little the worse for alcohol when I posted that, I'm actually surprised it isn't littered with spelling and gramatical errors

[GrantB]

So what's the solution?

 

Do we outlaw religion, burn the temples and synagogues and persecute any "wrong-thinkers" that refuse to repent their faith? We could really gain the moral high ground by burning religious texts or effigies.

 

Of course, in order to do so we would first have to start a campaign in the media suggestion that these "religious nut-cases" were a threat to our way of life and refuse to conform to our practices and beliefs. We could also instil a fear in the public that they all hold extremist views and are responsible for all the ills and conflicts of society.

We've already started the process with the Muslims, so it can't be that hard to extend it to other faiths.

 

I'm not for outlawing anything as I think it would have the opposite effect. I'd love to see the major religions discredited to the point that they ended up with few or no followers.

[Blackpool Jags]

I'm not for outlawing anything as I think it would have the opposite effect. I'd love to see the major religions discredited to the point that they ended up with few or no followers.

 

It's slowly but surely coming to that.