If we truly believe that even with its faults the U.S. is the best of all

[heidler1]

possible forms of government and that the founding fathers had a rare insight when it came to selecting our system of checks and balances? Which included a basic secular form. Why does Religion continually try to push the Constitution off the brink of historical sanity into a Religion based government more like the disasters where religiosity is more prevalent like Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia

[Az]

1. Because of a dynamic society and semi autonomous social constructs

Whether a religion is based on the truth or not they operate within the confines of human society. And as such behave in ways similar to entities of their own. That is one individual cannot absolutely control them. They function within rules governed by impetus of social reactions. Over time these functions become institutionalized and feed back into the society.

For centuries Dogmatic Religious institutions ruled western society. The institutional structures behind these systems became adapted to such rule. Simultaneously human society struggled to free itself of this dogmatic rule and establish a means of governing itself.

The signing of the Magna Carta represents the first significant blow in this battle. When the founding fathers set down their ideas in the constitution they were continuing this struggle. But the thing is the religious institutions still are comprised of the infrastructure they had developed over those centuries. They still operate as though they posess authority over morality.

Thus the struggle that started hundreds of years ago continues. Religion continues to feed its ideas of moral authority into its practicioners. And advances that were once made in the name of humanity can be lost to the resurgance of dogmatic belief.

[Old Mouse]

2. religion is not the problem

Religious leaders are. The people who are naturally inclined to claim moral authority would do so with or without a religion. That is the convenient excuse, without it they would ultimately create a new one.

As for the devout, have a moment of empathy for the concept, the reason for their action is clear: The existence of the state, human suffering, all things on earth are inconsequential compared to the will of God.

Instead of calling these people stupid as the left is inclined to do, I think its necessary to treat them with respect for their faith and point out that even if you mandate god's law it doesn't convert the individual will. The sin is in the intent and forgiveness in the repentance... so nothing is gained by forcing morality. The people still wouldn't be saved. Just as sinful and damned, but now also grumpy, sober and unpleasant. The religious right needs to be made to understand that forcing their faith does not create converts nor advance their God's will...

We on the the left get nowhere by claiming intellectual superiority or saying their beliefs would create an oppressive state. All that does is destroy the possibility for compromise.


edited for typing without my glasses on

[trotsky]

3. Religion is part of the problem.

Religious leaders could not claim moral authority without an institutional structure that does not allow for open discussion, reason, and the admission of error.

If someone thinks that THEIR version of religion is correct, how do you show them they're wrong? There is no independent structure on which to judge the merits of a religion - you have no grounds whatsoever to criticize someone with a different religious opinion.

When that kind of thinking gets messed up in politics, well, we know what the results are.

[beam me up scottie]

4. So we're supposed to cater to their beliefs so that we don't

offend them?

And you're suggesting we try to reason with the Talibornagain?

Ask the Afghani women how well that worked for them.

[heidler1]

5. Who knows what the will of God is? I do not even believe that these

religious leaders care about the will of God. They just want to expand their own power base. The Republicans desperately want to expand the view "Thou Shalt Not Steal" That Commandment has been used by those in power to shoot to kill, torture, cut off heads and so on Even though Christs words in the Beatitudes is contradictory.

[Old Mouse]

6. The leaders know full well what they do is blasphemy

But the followers are another matter.

Their faith keeps them following their leader's version of the word of god. Discussion to bring them back to Christ the first coming must be done through arguments within the philosophy. I think the real problem is many on the left have a desire to completely deprive them of belief. A desire for unconditional victory of reason over faith.

There is no victory in this fight, we must work toward compromise on both sides. As long as the left holds no invitation to cooperative rule that does not demand the conservative admit their faith inferior there can be no reconciliation.

[beam me up scottie]

8. Who has "a desire to completely deprive them of their belief" ?

"A desire for unconditional victory of reason over faith." ?

Do you make this stuff up?

I have NEVER heard anyone on the left even suggest such a thing.

Please, tell me, where have you run in to such monsters as these ?

[trotsky]

10. You have no way of knowing that.

Can you read minds?

I didn't think so.

Failing that ability, we have to take people who espouse religious faith at their word. That's the problem.

[Old Mouse]

7. If you study our history

you would find the pilgrims came to America to flee religious freedom and tolerance, not the other way around.

History is a strange thing.

[trotsky]

9. History is indeed a strange thing. n/t

[onager]

13. True. The Puritans came here to set up a theocracy.

Ironically, if they'd only waited about 20 more years, Cromwell would have given them exactly what they wanted in England.

Cromwell sort of illustrates one of my major problems with religion in general. From an initial good idea...giving Parliament more power while curbing the King's absolutism...his Puritan rule devolved into absolute nonsense like closing the theaters and arresting citizens for laughing on Sunday.

As I'm CONSTANTLY being reminded on DU, religion has "done a lot of good by establishing moral codes," bla-bla-bla.

I usually respond that much of this belief is hokum, IMO. Most "moral" codes are nothing but common-sense rules people need to live with each other in society: don't steal, don't kill, etc.

My theory is that these rules had already been in existence for thousands of years before religion came along and tried to hog all the credit for inventing the rules.

And once religion gets in the driver's seat, the common-sense rules get mixed in with a lot of outrageous and irrational BS.

So that, along with useful advice like "don't steal," you get idiocy like "women are evil," "you'll burn in hell for masturbating," and "shave your head, wear an orange robe, and be celibate for life."

[Nihil]

18. Now THAT's an idea I applaud ...

... for fundamentalists of all shapes & forms ...

> "shave your head ... and be celibate for life."

That way not only can the civilised people spot & avoid them but it
stops the bastards from breeding!

:evilgrin:

[Igel]

11. Religious groups do this from time to time.

Sometimes the result is good; sometimes it's bad.

The checks and balances system doesn't always work on the input to governmental decisions; the system can be pushed from side to side, and look skewed in the short term. Consider temperance. Ultimately, the system works in the middle term. We're still unable to say much about the long term, much less the very long term.

Anti-slavery movement, women's right to vote, civil rights movement, temperance movement, and a bunch of other things were pushed (and pushed against), at least in part, by religionists.

[trotsky]

12. Don't forget the freethinkers!

I have endeavoured to dissipate these religious superstitions from the minds of women, and base their faith on science and reason, where I found for myself at last that peace and comfort I could never find in the Bible and the church.... The less they believe, the better for their own happiness and development....
For fifty years the women of this nation have tried to dam up this deadly stream that poisons all their lives, but thus far they have lacked the insight or courage to follow it back to its source and there strike the blow at the fountain of all tyranny, religious superstition, priestly power, and the canon law.
-- Elizabeth Cady Stanton, "The Degraded Status of Woman in the Bible" (1896)

What you should say to outsiders is that a Christian has neither more nor less rights in our Association than an atheist. When our platform becomes too narrow for people of all creeds and of no creeds, I myself shall not stand upon it.
-- Susan B. Anthony, Susan B. Anthony: A Biography, by Kathleen Barry, New York University Press, 1988, p.310

[onager]

14. Good calls! And how about this one...

Have not all theists painted their Deity as the god of love and goodness? Yet after thousands of years of such preachments the gods remain deaf to the agony of the human race.

Confucius cares not for the poverty, squalor and misery of the people of China. Buddha remains undisturbed in his philosophical indifference to the famine and starvation of outraged Hindoos; Jahve continues deaf to the bitter cry of Israel; while Jesus refuses to rise from the dead against his Christians who are butchering each other.

-- Emma Goldman, "The Philosophy of Atheism," in Goldman's Mother Earth journal, February, 1916

[heidler1]

15. Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'

I hope this isn't a no no, but it seemed to fit this thread so I copied and pasted it. I was in the General Discussion forum. Thanks go to julialnyc.

julialnyc (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-27-05 07:28 PM
Original message
Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'
Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.ht...
RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.

[Igel]

16. So you're saying that Stanton and

Anthony single (ok, dual) handedly got women the franchise, civil rights, imposed temperance, and the rest? That strikes me as absurd as what you mistakenly seem to think I said.

I did not say that religious groups single-handedly did any of these things. I was answering a post, not establishing a new thread. Context and conversational implicature may not be everything, but they are certainly something.

Find somebody to argue with that you actually have an argument with, or save the bandwidth.

[trotsky]

17. It would appear that it's not me trying to pick a fight.

I'm just pointing out that the non-religious had a role, too. I never said those two women were responsible for everything either, did I? Who's mistaking whom here?

[arwalden]

19. Arrogance? Stupidity? Selfishness?