Merry Christmas Rick Perry

[Rapscallion]

That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the 'offence' caused by saying that something shouldn't happen. I was comparing it to the howling barbarism of religion.

Good that religion has done? What can people do as a religious group that an atheist group cannot? Why is good necessarily relegated only to religious groups in your mind?

Being oversensitive? Children being fucked by priests and the church protecting them, but me complaining about religion trying to hide the perpetrators is being oversensitive? I don't think it's insensitive enough. The church is the insensitive one. Girls getting raped in muslim lands and being punished for provoking the men, and I'm insensitive? Do me a favour.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

Honestly, I have no idea what the hell you're on about or how it relates to the bit you quoted that I said.

[Rapscallion]

Then I suggest reading it.

Rapscallion

[Kheldarson]

That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the 'offence' caused by saying that something shouldn't happen. I was comparing it to the howling barbarism of religion.

Good that religion has done? What can people do as a religious group that an atheist group cannot? Why is good necessarily relegated only to religious groups in your mind?

Being oversensitive? Children being fucked by priests and the church protecting them, but me complaining about religion trying to hide the perpetrators is being oversensitive? I don't think it's insensitive enough. The church is the insensitive one. Girls getting raped in muslim lands and being punished for provoking the men, and I'm insensitive? Do me a favour.

Rapscallion

I was discussing only this one issue. That really should be all we discuss in this because, honestly, my reasons for my faith and my religion will never be enough as evidenced by the many, many discussions that have been on this board. Just as your reasons for decrying religion will never be enough.

And it's for this reason: Any ill you can assign to religion, I can make an argument as being an evil of man and not religion. Same goes for good.

The purpose of my argument was to point out that the politics and religious factors of this issue are asinine. This is a truly non-issue. For one group or another to take offense is ridiculous, and I do find that so-called Christians tend to be the most insecure about it. Which makes the situation even more stupid. But to conflate it with larger evils and lash out on religions as a whole is fully ridiculous.

But if you want specifics: Western education came from religion. The hospitals and hospitality systems. The birth of modern philosophy. The start of modern genetics. The protection of soldiers during the Vietnam War. Donations to charities as well as the running of them. Working to help the sick and the poor.

And I've never said that atheists groups can't do good either. But saying that a man who is religious is doing good because he's good and not because he's religious while saying a man who is religious but doing evil is doing evil because of the religion and not because he's an evil man while declaring an atheist good or bad on the merits of his actions is a stupid argument too. Man will find any excuse to do evil. So declaring faith to be a bad thing overall because some men decided to pervert is asinine too.

[Rapscallion]

I was discussing only this one issue. That really should be all we discuss in this because, honestly, my reasons for my faith and my religion will never be enough as evidenced by the many, many discussions that have been on this board. Just as your reasons for decrying religion will never be enough.

I was discussing an issue that came up in defending religious indoctrination at a secular level.

Protecting child rapists isn't enough to decry a religion? Mass murder because someone believes differently isn't enough?

And it's for this reason: Any ill you can assign to religion, I can make an argument as being an evil of man and not religion. Same goes for good.

Hardly. The religious texts that I am aware of are claimed to be the word of the divinity who is worshipped, though that can depend on which adherent of that faith you speak to. Some practice 'pick and mix' and select only the nice bits. Others are quite happy to go along with the bad as well as the good, and funnily enough I end up respecting and loathing that approach more. Respect because it's honest, loathing because it's where the adherent concentrates on the really, really nasty parts to the exclusion of all. If religion is just an excuse for bad or good behaviour, why not just get rid? Does the bad really outweigh the good? Why not just have everyone judged on their actions instead of their adherence to an ancient way of life?

The purpose of my argument was to point out that the politics and religious factors of this issue are asinine. This is a truly non-issue. For one group or another to take offense is ridiculous, and I do find that so-called Christians tend to be the most insecure about it. Which makes the situation even more stupid. But to conflate it with larger evils and lash out on religions as a whole is fully ridiculous.

I think it's ridiculous to not take offence. Religions demand special exemption from the secular side of life, including taxation, but the tacit acceptance of not treading on the toes of political issues is flagrantly violated time and again. Marriage is a secular institution. Holy matrimony, for those following, is religious, but marriage is something defined by the government. Ministers performing marriages have to get a secular form signed, after all, buit you don't need a religious ceremony to get married.

How often have churches tried to influence the whole gay marriage debate? Just one example. Oh, but the politicians should stay out of religious affairs.

But if you want specifics: Western education came from religion. The hospitals and hospitality systems. The birth of modern philosophy. The start of modern genetics. The protection of soldiers during the Vietnam War. Donations to charities as well as the running of them. Working to help the sick and the poor.

You don't have to follow a religion to peform the charitable things you mention.

Be a bugger if anyone did a study that showed that atheists are more likely to give more to charity than theists. Wouldn't it?

And I've never said that atheists groups can't do good either. But saying that a man who is religious is doing good because he's good and not because he's religious while saying a man who is religious but doing evil is doing evil because of the religion and not because he's an evil man while declaring an atheist good or bad on the merits of his actions is a stupid argument too. Man will find any excuse to do evil. So declaring faith to be a bad thing overall because some men decided to pervert is asinine too.

I never said you didn't say that. What your argument boils down is religion being irrelevant in terms of good and bad, which leads to questioning what the point of religion being.

Faith does give some evil ideas, such as stoning or lashing rape victims. However, it also provides handy get-out clauses. "I may have sodomised the unwilling, but if I say sorry and accept god just before I die, I'm in heaven anyway."

Rapscallion

[Kheldarson]

I was discussing an issue that came up in defending religious indoctrination at a secular level.

But we're not discussing indoctrination at a secular level. Most Americans celebrate Christmas because we celebrate Christmas. They don't view it as a religious holiday. The fact that it is one is almost a side issue, which is why I think the whole Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas debate is ridiculous and why I find the fundamentalist shouting on either side ridiculous.

Protecting child rapists isn't enough to decry a religion? Mass murder because someone believes differently isn't enough?

The fact that man can make an excuse to do anything isn't enough? What about Pol Pot, Stalin, or Hitler? They made decisions to mass murder off of non-religious reasons. We declare them evil for the simple sake of evil. Why does religion of any stripe (most of which just discuss ways to live your life well and in peace and love) get all the blame when a man decides to use that as his excuse?

Basically, if a man declared that Confucianism made him do it, would you start to decry Confucianism? Or do we get to say that it's a philosophy or belief system that somebody has twisted to be their excuse?

Hardly. The religious texts that I am aware of are claimed to be the word of the divinity who is worshipped, though that can depend on which adherent of that faith you speak to. Some practice 'pick and mix' and select only the nice bits. Others are quite happy to go along with the bad as well as the good, and funnily enough I end up respecting and loathing that approach more. Respect because it's honest, loathing because it's where the adherent concentrates on the really, really nasty parts to the exclusion of all. If religion is just an excuse for bad or good behaviour, why not just get rid? Does the bad really outweigh the good? Why not just have everyone judged on their actions instead of their adherence to an ancient way of life?

The Bible is the Word of God as interpreted by human minds. Human minds can easily misinterpret said Word or miswrite it. Hence the Bible must be studied in context and in thought of how it applies to the world around. So, yes, what was once acceptable because of necessity (most of Leviticus) might be removed later because the reasons for it might no longer seem applicable (long term survival of a specific culture). It might be because change within dogma is a large undertaking and they want to be sure they're not just jumping under public pressure.

Religion is a moral and ethical teaching. It's not supposed to be an excuse for anything. It's supposed to be a simple way of life. Something we look towards as an example. Faith that we are part of something greater than ourselves. And why not judge a person on their actions anyway? Westboro Baptist Church is full of people who have shown nothing but hate. Mother Theresa lived her life trying to do good. Both had/have personal religious conviction on their side. But both have/had acted upon that conviction differently. They should be judged on those actions, not have their shared religion judged simply because it happens to be part of what drives them.

I think it's ridiculous to not take offence. Religions demand special exemption from the secular side of life, including taxation, but the tacit acceptance of not treading on the toes of political issues is flagrantly violated time and again. Marriage is a secular institution. Holy matrimony, for those following, is religious, but marriage is something defined by the government. Ministers performing marriages have to get a secular form signed, after all, buit you don't need a religious ceremony to get married.

How often have churches tried to influence the whole gay marriage debate? Just one example. Oh, but the politicians should stay out of religious affairs.

Marriage is both secular and religious as we don't normally use alternative words for other forms of unions. And the definition of marriage that the government initially began using way back when was because of the Church definition, which came first, incidentally. The government got involved because of taxes and census issues. Should the definitions be the same now? No, but that's honestly getting well off the point, so I shan't continue.

But what you're suggesting here is that religious figures shouldn't have opinions too. Isn't that like saying the mods on a board can't have opinions? Yes, a priest might explain why particular laws are against teachings, but they cannot say "go vote this way". And most don't. Yeah, some will anyway, but how's that different from a professor doing that in front of his class?

You don't have to follow a religion to peform the charitable things you mention.

And you don't have to be a non-religious person either.

I never said you didn't say that. What your argument boils down is religion being irrelevant in terms of good and bad, which leads to questioning what the point of religion being.

Faith does give some evil ideas, such as stoning or lashing rape victims. However, it also provides handy get-out clauses. "I may have sodomised the unwilling, but if I say sorry and accept god just before I die, I'm in heaven anyway."

Again, religion is just the path one chooses. It's your philosophy, your belief. If you commit, you should commit all the way, which should lead you to good. But you yourself should still be judged on being who you are, not what you are.

As for your last statement, that's really more a Protestant idea. The Catholic Church holds for the existence of Purgatory, where most of us go to be cleansed of the last of our sins after death anyway before going to heaven. And judgement is up to God anyway. So it's possible that a rapists might get in at that point, they might not. The Church won't say either way. And besides, it's supposed to be a true repentance on being truly sorry, not a "get out of jail free" card. But no one can know what's in a man's heart.


Anyway, we're massively off topic for this thread and this section of the board. So, more to the topic, I think it's a shame that people have gotten themselves worked up on this issue more than it needs to be, in all areas. Teach the holidays and their histories in school since you have students of all faiths and creeds in class anyway and your students will have to interact with them eventually even if you don't and make it fun. The holidays are supposed to be fun.

Heck, I remember doing the "Dreidel Song" as part of a school performance once (elementary school). It was fun.

[Rapscallion]

But we're not discussing indoctrination at a secular level. Most Americans celebrate Christmas because we celebrate Christmas. They don't view it as a religious holiday. The fact that it is one is almost a side issue, which is why I think the whole Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas debate is ridiculous and why I find the fundamentalist shouting on either side ridiculous.

If the fundamentalists bother you, then maybe there's something wrong with the fundamentals of the religion in question.

What exactly have the fundamentalists amongst atheism done that is so wrong? Hurt someone's feelings, is about the most I can work out.

The fact that man can make an excuse to do anything isn't enough? What about Pol Pot, Stalin, or Hitler? They made decisions to mass murder off of non-religious reasons. We declare them evil for the simple sake of evil. Why does religion of any stripe (most of which just discuss ways to live your life well and in peace and love) get all the blame when a man decides to use that as his excuse?

Hello Godwin my only friend...

Actually, Hitler was most certainly not an atheist. He wasn't fully catholic, but not averse to sharing certain matching views, as far as I understand it.

However, you're basically proving my point here. Religion isn't necessary for a person's actions, so why try to shoehorn it into schools?

Basically, if a man declared that Confucianism made him do it, would you start to decry Confucianism? Or do we get to say that it's a philosophy or belief system that somebody has twisted to be their excuse?

Well, if confucianism contained within it instructions to, oh I don't know, stone to death people who worked on a certain day, or execute children who cheeked their parents, then I'd decry that as well. If it has teachings that are deplorable, then it can be deplored.

The Bible is the Word of God as interpreted by human minds.

As I said, it depends on the adherent you speak to.

However, you're talking about a being able to create an entire universe within the bounds of the religion in question. You think that such a being who wants the salvation of a race he created wouldn't be able to make sure the text got out without corruption?

Human minds can easily misinterpret said Word or miswrite it. Hence the Bible must be studied in context and in thought of how it applies to the world around. So, yes, what was once acceptable because of necessity (most of Leviticus) might be removed later because the reasons for it might no longer seem applicable (long term survival of a specific culture). It might be because change within dogma is a large undertaking and they want to be sure they're not just jumping under public pressure.

Yet there are adherents desperately trying to enforce their beliefs on others over biblical matters, such as gay marriage. They probably have no issue with cutting their hair, eating shrimp and pork, or gardening on the sabbath, but when two people want to marry (really, they should be complaining about gay men having sex with each other, not just marriage), then wowsers, it's a cause celebre.

They might seem irrelevant aspects to you, but to those who adhere to it, it's a stick to beat others with and boy do they love the beating.

Why should dogma change, anyway? When did the god of the burning bush, the god who flooded the world, the god who gave the commandments to moses, the god who was so annoyed with our sins that he sent his own son who was himself to be killed by us so we could be cool together (think about it), the god who seems to appear in images in grilled cheese these days, why is such a powerful being incapable of giving a clear message?

Religion is a moral and ethical teaching. It's not supposed to be an excuse for anything. It's supposed to be a simple way of life. Something we look towards as an example. Faith that we are part of something greater than ourselves. And why not judge a person on their actions anyway? Westboro Baptist Church is full of people who have shown nothing but hate. Mother Theresa lived her life trying to do good. Both had/have personal religious conviction on their side. But both have/had acted upon that conviction differently. They should be judged on those actions, not have their shared religion judged simply because it happens to be part of what drives them.

Ethics is a word I find interesting. It boils, along with 'enlightenment' and 'moral', down to the concept of 'what I agree with', and people claiming the bible isn't moral baffle me. It's not moral within their world, but it's moral within its own scheme to take slaves from neighbouring nations, to stone the disobedient etc. If those actions are unacceptable, and the actions are part of a whole that claims the entirity must be correct due to an invisible father figure who gives you free will and punishes you for using it, then surely you have to deny the entirity of the message.

So, back to Mother Theresa etc. WBC is a special case - even other baptist churches have backed away, but they are at least honest in following the exact text of their chosen instruction manual. I can respect them for that. I also hate them for it. Mother Theresa has had a few people investigate her and find out that it's not that good, actually.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - seems as if you're agreeing. I don't think you need religion to do good or bad, as we view the terms. At that point, I have to ask why to give an excuse and a get-out clause to those who are bigoted etc?

Marriage is both secular and religious as we don't normally use alternative words for other forms of unions.

Not the way I see it. Marriage is the civil term, holy matrimony is the religious (in christianity at least). Those performing holy matrimony have to sign up to a marriage certificate, but not the other way around.

And the definition of marriage that the government initially began using way back when was because of the Church definition, which came first, incidentally. The government got involved because of taxes and census issues. Should the definitions be the same now? No, but that's honestly getting well off the point, so I shan't continue.

Rather off the point, and I don't agree with you anyway.

But what you're suggesting here is that religious figures shouldn't have opinions too. Isn't that like saying the mods on a board can't have opinions? Yes, a priest might explain why particular laws are against teachings, but they cannot say "go vote this way". And most don't. Yeah, some will anyway, but how's that different from a professor doing that in front of his class?

Oh, I encourage the mods to have opinions on here, and I disagree with them openly on occasion. However, we all act within the rules of the society we find ourselves. By the way, professors shouldn't do that either.

Professors are more likely in my experience to allow people to think for themselves, but religion follows and attempts to indoctrinate in a particular way without deciding between two options (well, unless you want to burn for eternity). Not all professors do what they should, but most of them will give you the tools to think and seek evidence.

Again, religion is just the path one chooses. It's your philosophy, your belief. If you commit, you should commit all the way, which should lead you to good. But you yourself should still be judged on being who you are, not what you are.

Try reading the instruction manual for a faith. It's not a guide book, it's not a philosophy - it's actually telling you what you should think, believe, and do.

As for your last statement, that's really more a Protestant idea. The Catholic Church holds for the existence of Purgatory, where most of us go to be cleansed of the last of our sins after death anyway before going to heaven. And judgement is up to God anyway. So it's possible that a rapists might get in at that point, they might not. The Church won't say either way. And besides, it's supposed to be a true repentance on being truly sorry, not a "get out of jail free" card. But no one can know what's in a man's heart.

It's still a religious viewpoint.

Anyway, we're massively off topic for this thread and this section of the board.

I think it's quite pertinent. Why is Rick Perry trying to bring this into law for the schools? Is it down to him believing in freedom for all religion, or is he doing it to further his particular religion? Answer this honestly.

So, more to the topic, I think it's a shame that people have gotten themselves worked up on this issue more than it needs to be, in all areas. Teach the holidays and their histories in school since you have students of all faiths and creeds in class anyway and your students will have to interact with them eventually even if you don't and make it fun. The holidays are supposed to be fun.

Heck, I remember doing the "Dreidel Song" as part of a school performance once (elementary school). It was fun.

It's an attempt to insert indoctrination into a place where minds are malleable and need protecting from insane ideas. It's in the same strategic mould as intelligent design, trying to insert the 'what if we're right' concept into minds.

I don't mind teaching about religion within religious education, and I don't condone teaching against religion. I would be happy if the full facts of a religion were brought forward and people were allowed to decide on the good and bad parts of each religion, but I wouldn't want them to be taught a religion in there.

Rapscallion

[Rageaholic]

Not 100% sure how I feel about this one. It seems unnecessary to begin with and smacks of more of this War On Christmas(tm) bullshit.

That's why I'm still skeptical. It's not hard to see his point at face value. There have been a few cases where some overly offended douchebag took offense to a simple Merry Christmas, but the conservative Christians take this too far by acting like this small minority is trying to overthrow Christmas. Not to mention some of the religious right acting as if the mention of anything other than Chrstmas or Easter is some attack on their faith (they have quite the persecution complex).

[Andara Bledin]

What your argument boils down is religion being irrelevant in terms of good and bad, which leads to questioning what the point of religion being.

And what your argument boils down to is that you don't get it so you don't think anyone else should bother with it.

[Rapscallion]

I do get it. It's one of history's most profitable con jobs.

You've yet to address my other points.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

I don't have any interest in banging my head against that wall, again. You won't budge on your preset notions and I won't budge on mine, and both sides have been covered ad nauseum.

Plus, there is the insistence that evils committed by men in the name of religion are valid while the good committed in the name of religion is not valid. Add in the anti-theistic view that atrocities committed against theists (which are an order of magnitude greater than those committed by theists) were done by men without regard for their beliefs or lack thereof, and I can't even begin to take the argument as even remotely honest.

[Rapscallion]

I don't have preset notions. I'm quite able to accept evidence.

I await it with interest.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

You can say that all you want, but you're very stance is against the potential for religion to be anything but bad, and the way you frame the argument disqualifies any evidence before it's even presented.

Everything I've seen shows that attempting to debate the subject is pointless, thus I refuse to beat my head against that wall any further.

[Rapscallion]

I'm open to evidence for it being good.

Please provide it.

I also am open to the possibility that religion is correct.

Please provide that proof.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

No, you're not. You think you are, but when you say that bad is because religion while dismissing that good can be because religion, you're being a hypocrite. Either both good and bad can be because religion or neither can. It's either intrinsic or it's not. It cannot be conditionally intrinsic.