|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 372 responses total. |
mynxcat
|
|
response 25 of 372:
| 
May 31 07:06 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 26 of 372:
|
May 31 07:32 UTC 2002 |
The title of this item is SO reminiscent of "Philosophy: Who needs
it?" that I almost expected a Randroid essay.
I think that the premise of #0 grazes the target but doesn't quite
smack it. The conflicts are due to a lack of tolerance; this may
be underpinned by religious fundamentalism in some cases, but people
support intolerance with many ideologies.
The real solution to the religious conflicts is secularism. If Pakistan
had a secular government instead of being strongly Islamist and there were
no discrimination, the Hindus of Kashmir wouldn't worry about what state
they lived in. If India worked harder to be secular instead of giving
a free pass to Hindu radicals, some Muslims wouldn't have a problem with
living under Indian government (there is a strong current in Islam which
holds that nothing but an Islamic government will do, which is a serious
obstacle to secularism and modernization of the Muslim world).
I find the Muslim opposition to secularism disturbing, almost as disturbing
as the fundamentalist Baptist/Pentecostal/etc. opposition in the USA.
When religion ruled Western society, it was called the Middle Ages. The
Muslim world is, by and large, still living in the Middle Ages save for
Western influence. People who'd plunge Western society back into that
darkness are people I don't want in any position of influence.
|
mdw
|
|
response 27 of 372:
|
May 31 07:45 UTC 2002 |
Er, I think #23 was a horrible almost-pun on #9,#11,etc., but I may have
been distracted and mis-read the tail part of some item and thought it
was part of this one. I will say that you don't often hear of
lynx-related suicide bombings, even though lynx does very occasionally
commit suicide on its own, if it doesn't bomb out first. Fortunately
lynx doesn't panic.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 28 of 372:
|
May 31 09:22 UTC 2002 |
resp:20 That's certainly true, I guess, from a certain point of
view. However, you can't climb instead my head to see what I've
experienced, so you might as well drop any sense of scientific
superiority.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 29 of 372:
|
May 31 13:58 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 30 of 372:
|
May 31 14:46 UTC 2002 |
Re #20: Right, the U.S. never has internal conflicts. Well, except for the
Civil War, race riots, and Japanese internment. But those don't count
because they're not religious, and only religion can produce evil in your
sight, right?
I stand by my comment. In the absence of religious conflicts, people in the
U.S. have settled on race and economics as reasons to hate each other
instead.
|
vmskid
|
|
response 31 of 372:
|
May 31 17:14 UTC 2002 |
Well, once something gets in someone's head, it becomes like a religion to
them, I guess. Whether the topic is religious or not. Rane is religiously
anti-religious, as are many other people. I say again, fanaticism is not
merely in the domain of the traditionally religious.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 32 of 372:
|
May 31 17:52 UTC 2002 |
The examples in #30 are all "incidents", not over-riding principles. Sure
they are "evil" (wrong), but religious conflict beats them all - as
demonstrated all over the world today. Of course all sorts of people hate
other all sorts of people, and always will. But nothing beats the religion
conflict. That's why it's #1 in the Bill of Rights. Other conflicts are
addressed by later amendments, correcting various discimininations
(sexual, slavery, etc) that were once accepted. The nation was founded in
part to address #1.
|
brighn
|
|
response 33 of 372:
|
May 31 18:13 UTC 2002 |
The man generally considered the worst murderer of the 20th Century -- Josef
Stalin -- was building an atheist government. Second in line is Adolph Hitler,
whose specific religious affiliation is still hotly debated, it was so vague.
Sure, Osama bin Laden may, in retrospect, earn the #3 position, although there
are plenty of non-religious monsters to compete with him for that one.
Meanwhile, the two biggest names for peace in the same century -- Ghandhi and
ML King, Jr. -- were very religious men.
Religion is a component of ethnic or social identification. As such, it can
be used to justify all the most disturbing wrongs, but non-religious ideology
can and has been used to justify the same degree of wrongs. It's not about
religion, it's about ideology, and intolerance.
|
jep
|
|
response 34 of 372:
|
May 31 20:29 UTC 2002 |
re #20: Rane, medieval monasteries were about the only keepers or
makers of books in Europe during their time. The first printed book in
English was the Gutenberg Bible. The monasteries moved clocks from the
hourglass to the mechanical clock because they needed accurate
timekeeping in order to keep their schedule of religious devotions.
Logical reasoning was developed by and for religious thinkers in that
period. The questions "How many angels can dance on the head of a
pin?" and "If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it,
does it make a sound?" are two classic religious logic questions.
There was logical thinking in Europe before that, but it was developed
much, much more extensively by church thinkers.
Labeling religion as superstition and mysticism does not prove that
it's not beneficial to society, or that it hasn't been beneficial
throughout history.
|
russ
|
|
response 35 of 372:
|
Jun 1 01:41 UTC 2002 |
Re #29: Ah, now it's obvious why the period around the year 1865 doesn't
ring any bells for you. It was rather eventful for the USA.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 36 of 372:
|
Jun 1 03:16 UTC 2002 |
The American Civil War was 1860-5.
Rane, you are NOT nearly as stupid as you pretend. I would like you to stop
pretending. You DO know better, and have said so elsewhere. The colonies
had established churches (e.g., the Church of Virginia) from the very
beginning. And yet, there was very little fighting between the colonies.
If differences of religion is the basis of all conflict, and if conflict is
inevitable when religions differ, why would there be so little fighting in
between the colonies? And why was such fighting as there was NOT based on
religion?
Yes, I know the countries of Pakistion (East and West, one nation)
and India were separated, BY THE INVADER, on the basis of religion.
And Pakistan was separated from Afghanistan by what would make a more
defensible border for the British abandoning Afghanistan. However,
I contend that religion was just one aspect of the difference. In fact,
Pakistanis (and Bangladeshi) are NOT the same as the Indians. (Hypothesis:
Hindu caste lines follow Indian tribal lines. Given the age of the two,
that would be a fun hypothesis to explore.)
India has significant populations of Buddhists, Sikhs and Christians
(Christianity arrived ca AD 400, WELL before the British, *almost* before the
British *were* British). While Sihks and Hindus tend to go at it now and
again, and Sikhs and Muslims, the Buddhists and Christians seem not to be
involved. (I did hear on this evening's news that a Christian church was
burnt out today, but I did not hear in which city that incident occurred).
I contend the "religious" divisions in India are *really* tribal divisions
(just as they are in many other parts of the world). But nobody wants
to admit that something besides religion might possibly be involved,
so they ignore the elephant.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 37 of 372:
|
Jun 1 03:48 UTC 2002 |
Re #34: that monestaries played those roles does not mean that the roles
would not have been played by others in a secular evolution of society.
I also stated that mysticism WAS of benefit to the development of
human societies. (We are seeing again "selective reading and
misinterpretation", as often occurs in these discussions.)
For example: I have not said anywhere that "differences of religion is the
basis of all conflict". I have only said that mixing religion and state
functions leads to conflicts (in other words to that effect). This certainly
occurred amongst the colonies and the realization of this led to the
separation of church and state amendment to the Constitution.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 38 of 372:
|
Jun 1 05:28 UTC 2002 |
I disagree. The Church and State were "separated" only because no one wanted
another State's Church chosen as the Nation's Church. "Establish" was a term
of art, with a very specific meaning that has largely been lost (or
deliberately ignored).
|
rcurl
|
|
response 39 of 372:
|
Jun 1 17:00 UTC 2002 |
RIght - they werer all at each other's throats. It could have come to violence
if they did not all agree to disagree. ee
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HAMSEP.html.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 40 of 372:
|
Jun 1 19:55 UTC 2002 |
Re: #27 --
Did anyone notice anything fushy about this message?
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 41 of 372:
|
Jun 2 01:23 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 42 of 372:
|
Jun 2 04:17 UTC 2002 |
It has the number 9 and the number 11 in sequence! It must be a terrorism
signal, designed to take away our freedom!
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 43 of 372:
|
Jun 2 07:39 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
vidar
|
|
response 44 of 372:
|
Jun 4 20:06 UTC 2002 |
I really hate that saying "agree to disagree". Noone "agrees"
to "disagree", they just disagree. And while there are multiple
versions of what is right, often one point of view is flat out wrong.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 45 of 372:
|
Jun 4 20:09 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 46 of 372:
|
Jun 4 20:31 UTC 2002 |
If you disagree about disagreeing, Vidar, then you would continue to argue
with me after I'd decided to stop. If you agree to disagree, then both parties
just stop arguing.
|
eskarina
|
|
response 47 of 372:
|
Jun 4 23:15 UTC 2002 |
about the developments being a benefit of religion: I would disagree. The
Catholic church had strong control over society for a long time. It made
rules about what music could be made (church music only, no instruments) who
could read (monks, etc). The reason that all these developments occured
within the church was that the church didn't allow anyone else to ahve access
to the rescources to develop anything.
It was also the middle ages.
As one of those wacko Christian nutcases, I would like to say that a
cost-benefit analysis of "should we have religion" very much misses the point
to me. You could do the same thing for morality, consciousness, etc, asking
if it is a benefit or a loss. We can't get rid of it, it is in some sense
innate, humankind's search for something greater than themselves. Besides,
for me the question shouldn't be "does it help me?", rather "Do I believe X,
and how does that belief affect my life?"
If its true, whether it "helps" you or not is a meaningless question.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 48 of 372:
|
Jun 4 23:26 UTC 2002 |
For non-religious people, though, the question isn't meaningless. Religion
isn't innate for me, so all I see are the ways it affects the world around
me. Some of those ways are good. Some of those ways are horrible beyond all
reason. That's the basic problem: religion is beyond reason, and thus can
cause people to do things no rational person would.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 49 of 372:
|
Jun 4 23:35 UTC 2002 |
I don't see that religion is innate at all. Almost all people are trained
into religions, by parents usually but also by the "community". If people
stopped training others into religions, there would be many fewer people
professing religions.
You cannot do the same thing with morality, conscience, etc - society
needs those things to function. It does not need religions.
"Humankind" doesn't particularly "search for something greater than
themselves". That is a religious idea that has been fed to many people
while they were being trained. It is unnecessary for living a full,
complete, ethical and moral life. (I'm not even sure what it means.
Exactly what does "greater" mean in this adage? Bigger? More important?
More capable? Many things are all of that and more for everyone.)
|